list_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about read-only nature, language coverage, error handling for unparseable files, or whether nested/inner symbols are included. Only the fact that line numbers are returned is disclosed, and output format is largely covered by the output schema.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is minimal but appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained, and for a one-parameter read tool the description is nearly adequate. However, it lacks any routing guidance against the many overlapping code-introspection siblings, leaving an agent to guess which tool fits.

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 0%, but there is a single self-evident 'path' parameter and the description implies it refers to a file. It does not clarify relative vs absolute paths or what happens if a directory is passed, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds meaning.

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 states a concrete verb (List) and resource (functions and classes defined in a file) plus the added detail of line numbers. It clearly separates itself from generic read_file/list_files, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like find_definition or repo_map, which also surface code structure.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over find_definition (locate a specific symbol) or repo_map (whole-repo overview). The use case is only inferable from the phrase 'defined in a file'.

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