Extract a file's symbols, line ranges, and signatures without reading the whole file. Use it to get a compact structural outline, prioritizing types, methods, and fields.
Symbols a file defines, with line ranges and signatures, without reading it. Truncation keeps types, then methods, then fields. <= 1500 tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only readOnlyHint provided, the description usefully adds behavior beyond the annotation: the truncation priority order (types, then methods, then fields) and a hard size cap of ~1500 tokens. That tells an agent how output degrades under load, which the annotations do not.
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?
Two tight sentences plus a size fragment, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the return-value burden by describing symbols with line ranges and signatures and the truncation fallback. It is nearly complete, with the only real gap being the semantics of the 'limit' parameter.
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% and neither parameter is explained. 'path' is self-evident, but 'limit' (default 10) is never defined — it is unclear whether it caps symbol count, lines, or something else; the '<= 1500 tokens' note concerns output size, not the limit parameter's 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?
States a specific verb+resource: it returns the symbols a file defines, with line ranges and signatures, and adds the key differentiator 'without reading it.' It is clear enough to distinguish from get_symbol or search_symbols, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — the phrase 'without reading it' hints at a cheap overview step before reading a full file, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternative tools like search_symbols or repo_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.