Symbol context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the result is bounded, that graph edges are 'observed', and that original source may be needed for body/freshness/ambiguity, signaling possible truncation or staleness. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or response structure.

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 two compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded and a short conditional instruction. There is no filler or redundancy, though the jargon could be clearer.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are insufficient. It does not explain what a source packet contains, what graph edges are returned, how depth/max_tokens/profile affect results, or what include_body and include_omitted_ids control.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. The seven parameters—depth, profile, max_tokens, include_body, include_omitted_ids, repo_id, and symbol_id—are not explained beyond their self-explanatory names, and key behaviors like depth limits, token limits, and omitted IDs are left unspecified.

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 and resource: return a bounded source packet around one indexed symbol and observed graph edges. This is clearer than a tautology, though 'source packet' and 'observed graph edges' are jargon and it does not explicitly distinguish from graph-related siblings like get_impact_slice or get_repo_map.

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 second sentence provides a useful exclusion: use original source when body, freshness, or ambiguity matter, implying the returned context may be derived, stale, or incomplete. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like find_symbols or search_source, so the guidance is only partial.

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