Inspect symbol (composite)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether this is read-only, whether there are rate limits or caching behavior, what 'immediate graph' means in practice, or how the view modes affect behavior. The token budget implication is only hinted at.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, though the 'view=full' detail would be better placed after establishing the baseline behavior.

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 4-param composite tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the return packet shape beyond a partial list, doesn't document the budget_tokens interaction, and leaves view semantics mostly opaque.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented params. It mentions view='full' but doesn't explain what 'minimal' or 'normal' return, doesn't clarify the required 'query' semantics (symbol name? pattern?), and never mentions repo_id or budget_tokens.

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+resource: 'Resolve a symbol and its immediate graph in one call.' Clear on what the tool does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling get_symbol_context, which likely overlaps significantly.

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?

Says 'Use before editing a symbol,' which implies a workflow context. But it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and doesn't differentiate from close siblings like get_symbol_context or find_symbols.

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