Read original symbol prototypes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The description adds modest context: inspection preserves default instance/parameter attributes and hashes/original bytes are used for insertion independently of an agent SDK. That is useful but thin against an already-complete annotation set.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the two capabilities (list vs. inspect) in one sentence, then the read-only fact and downstream-usage note. Efficient overall, though the 'independently of any agent SDK' clause is jargon that slightly dilutes the close.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews return content (hashes, names, pins, extent, preserved default attributes). All parameters are optional and fully schema-documented, so the definition is largely self-sufficient, though the hash-vs-'original bytes' distinction and downstream use remain a bit opaque.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description only maps path loosely to 'inspect one prototype' and hints at pagination via 'List', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States specific verbs and resource: 'List installed max2lib SYM files' and 'inspect one prototype' with named fields (SHA-256, pins, extent, default attributes). The two modes are clearly distinguished by the path parameter. It does not name any sibling (e.g., sym_inspect or gdf_symbol_refresh) to differentiate, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the two usage modes (list all vs. inspect one via path), but never states when to use this tool over sym_inspect, gdf_symbol_refresh, or sym_create, nor any exclusion condition. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.