Open

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: miss responses return ok=false/SYMBOL_NOT_FOUND, and empty examples are meaningful rather than missing data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely compact: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and timing, then add failure and edge-case semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The description provides the core purpose, timing, failure behavior, and empty-example semantics, while annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape. However, the undocumented parameters remain a notable gap: the agent is left guessing what format ref should take and what include_source controls.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, but it does not. The meaning of 'ref' is only loosely implied by 'L2 symbol page', and 'include_source' is completely unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as opening an 'L2 symbol page' with signature, doc, examples, and tests, which is much more specific than the generic title 'Open'. It still lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from siblings like info or outline, but the resource and contents are clearly stated.

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 gives a concrete use context with 'inject before coding', telling the agent when to invoke it. It also documents the miss behavior, but it does not state when not to use this tool or explicitly compare it to sibling tools such as search or outline.

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