list_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and says nothing about truncation when max_results is hit, result ordering, or the empty-string defaults actually meaning 'match everything'. It does not even state that the operation is read-only, though that is inferable from the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core filter (name substring) and the modifier (kind) appear before anything else. Nothing is wasted.

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 return values need no explanation, and all params are optional with defaults. But the description is silent on what happens when max_results is exceeded or when query/kind are left empty, which are the main ambiguities for a filtered-list tool.

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: it usefully defines query as a name substring match and pins kind to class/interface/enum/struct/record, plus marks kind optional. However, max_results — the parameter that controls result set size — is never mentioned, leaving a meaningful 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 and resource ("List C# types") and enumerates the symbol kinds covered, so the agent knows immediately this is a symbol-browsing tool. It does not name how it differs from siblings like get_symbol or search_code, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for substring lookups but never states when to use it instead of get_symbol (exact lookup), list_refs, or search_code. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing guidance.

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