get_symbols_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON object with top-level symbols, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any potential side effects or limitations beyond the parameter schema.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and return value. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 relatively simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role, when to use it, and what it returns. The slight gap is that it does not explicitly mention exclusion criteria or contrast with other tools, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema fully documents relative_path and max_answer_chars, so no compensation is needed.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'get a high-level understanding of the code symbols in a file' and specifies the return of a JSON object with top-level symbols. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_symbol or read_file, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit guidance: 'This should be the first tool to call when you want to understand a new file, unless you already know what you are looking for.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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