nav_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'always current' and 'live outline', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or the fact that it returns a hierarchical list of symbols. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 only two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core functionality ('Live outline of one file') and immediately follows with a usage suggestion. Every sentence adds value and fits within a concise scope.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., symbol kind, name, location), which is relevant for an agent to interpret results. It also does not compare with sibling tools beyond the one alternative (reading whole file). For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in output format and sibling differentiation.

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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. It implies the 'file' parameter through 'one file' but does not elaborate on tokenBudget or its truncation behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters sufficiently.

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 provides a 'live outline of one file (document symbols, hierarchical)', specifying the verb (outline), resource (one file), and structure (hierarchical). It distinguishes from reading a whole file but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nav_callHierarchy or nav_definition, which also deal with symbols.

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 to 'prefer this over reading a whole file to learn its structure', giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools among the siblings, leaving the agent to infer exclusion criteria.

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