symbols_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly states the operation is a read ('读取') and restricts execution to project copies, which implies non-destructive intent. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only-style tool this is sufficient and more informative than the tool name alone.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. Each clause contributes meaning: the resource and action are front-loaded, and the operational constraint is appended without repetition. It is exemplary in brevity and structure.

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 straightforward read tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and constraints. It specifies the data read (names, addresses, comments) and the execution scope (project copy). Some details like output format are absent, but they are not critical for selecting or calling this tool correctly.

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 both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., project copy context matches the schema's '含唯一 HCP 索引的完整工程目录'). Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (global symbol names, addresses, comments), and adds a key constraint (只在工程副本中运行) that distinguishes it from write/patch siblings like symbols_patch_copy. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 usage context by requiring a project copy, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as symbols_patch_copy or il_read. It offers no 'use this when' or 'not when' guidance, only a technical constraint.

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