get_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose output scope — private members are omitted and only public/protected are returned — which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about behavior when the name is unknown, whether lookup is exact or fuzzy, or whether results are cached, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the payload and ending with the routing pointer. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be re-explained, and the description does cover the main returned fields. However, the one required parameter's expected form is left unresolved and there is no statement about failure behavior for an unmatched name, which an agent would need to call this reliably.

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 the single `name` parameter is documented only as a bare string. The description implies it is a type name via "Show a type," which is the only hint about its meaning. It does not specify format expectations (fully qualified vs. partial name) or matching behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Show") and a specific resource ("a type") and enumerates the payload: doc comment, bases, public/protected members, file path. It also distinguishes itself from get_file. Minor ambiguity remains as to whether non-type symbols (functions, constants) are supported.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: "Use get_file for full source." That is a clear routing rule for the most likely confusion. It does not address how this relates to list_symbols, search_code, or find_subclasses, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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