Inspect a custom symbol interface

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: 'No compiler needed' clarifies it works on source, 'Paginated collections' discloses result paging behavior, and 'direction provenance does not prove circuit wiring' warns against a tempting misreading of the returned directions. That caveat is behaviorally important and not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a capability note and a caveat. The pagination/caveat clause is dense but every element earns its place. Minor density is the only cost.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what is inspected, notes pagination, and flags the interpretation caveat. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on the two-scope model (project vs workspace) or the paginated return shape would make it airtight.

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 seven parameters including limit/offset/childLimit/childOffset defaults and caps. The description's 'Paginated collections' echoes that without adding syntax or guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 a specific verb (inspect) and resource (standalone SYM graphics), and enumerates the concrete artifacts returned: pin names/positions/native interface directions, text display flags, preserved instance defaults. It clearly reads rather than mutates, distinguishing it from sym_edit and sym_create. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from related inspection siblings such as gdf_pin_labels or gdf_geometry.

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?

'No compiler needed' gives an implicit usage context (inspect a source SYM without a compiled artifact), which is a useful hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to the edit counterparts when the agent actually needs to change something. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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