check_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three output outcomes (confirmed, fuzzy match, unknown) and the counting behavior for confirmed symbols. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and output categories. It covers the returned statuses and the counting of confirmed symbols. Some minor details like guaranteed read-only behavior are implied but not explicit, but overall it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions passing 'function/class/variable names' which corresponds to the 'symbols' parameter, but adds no significant detail beyond the schema descriptions. Hence, it does not elevate the score.

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?

The description clearly states the tool verifies symbol names, specifying the verb 'verify' and the resource 'symbol names'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'refresh_symbols' and 'reindex_project', which have different purposes.

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 advises calling 'after writing code that references existing symbols, especially in unfamiliar parts of the codebase', providing clear context. It also explains the output behavior ('Only reports problems'), though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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