get_module_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance implications, error conditions, or output format. 'Get' suggests a query, but no safety or side-effect information is given for a tool analyzing code modules.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it immediately understandable while appropriately sized for its informational content.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'exported symbols' includes (functions, variables, types?), the return format, or how it handles different module systems. The lack of behavioral context and output information leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's details for 'root', 'moduleName', and 'filePath'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('exported symbols from a TypeScript/JavaScript module'), specifying the scope ('without detailed signatures'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' by focusing on module exports rather than local scope, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_type_at_symbol' or 'get_type_in_module'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_type_in_module'. The description implies usage for module analysis but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing among similar symbol-related tools.

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