Symbol details from a library file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the default library path behavior and the fact that it returns detailed pin/property info, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or limitations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the example helps grounding.

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 the tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential invoke-time information. It does not describe return fields, but the output schema handles that. The only minor gap is not explicitly distinguishing this from the similar get_symbol_pins tool, but the wording is sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each argument with examples and clarifying that symbol_lib_path is optional and defaults to the configured library. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'detailed pin and property info for a symbol in a library.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_symbol_pins and list_lib_symbols by emphasizing both pin data and property data.

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 provides clear usage context by listing required and optional arguments, including an example symbol name and the behavior of omitting symbol_lib_path (uses default). It gives no explicit exclusions or references to alternatives, but the purpose statement implies when this tool is appropriate.

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