One-shot context brief for a symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that caller attribution is a heuristic ('attributed to their enclosing symbol — heuristic'), that sections are opt-in via include, and that output is bounded by callerLimit and maxChars with explicit truncation. It does not detail not-found behavior or return format, but the disclosed traits are meaningful.

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 compact and information-dense, using three sentences to cover purpose, configurable sections, and limits. Every sentence contributes value with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with no output schema or annotations, yet the description covers its core behavior, configurable sections, defaults, and bounding limits. It does not explain the output structure or error cases, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for most one-shot context requests.

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 covers 75% of parameters, and the description adds semantic meaning by explaining the default include set ('default definition,signature,callers,imports') and how to extend it ('add body for full source, dependents for reverse deps'). It also ties callerLimit and maxChars to truncation behavior, going beyond the schema's default-value descriptions.

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 this is a one-call aggregation tool: 'ONE call for what would take several: definition, signature, callers/references..., imports, dependents.' It identifies a specific resource (context brief for a symbol) and distinguishes itself from single-purpose siblings by emphasizing the combined retrieval.

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 conveys strong usage context with 'ONE call for what would take several' and explains opt-in section control. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives like find_definition or get_symbol_context, so it stops short of a 5.

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