resolve_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description discloses ranking factors (path match, non-test preference, centrality), adding behavioral context beyond the input schema. It could mention error handling or result format, but output schema helps.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and then expand with ranking details. No redundant or irrelevant content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations and an output schema, the description covers input and ranking behavior well. It doesn't mention empty results or error cases, but these are minor gaps for a focused disambiguation 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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining how path_hint and query influence ranking, but could more explicitly tie kind to filtering.

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 tool disambiguates short symbol names into ranked qualified matches. It gives a concrete example ('add') and ranks by relevance criteria, distinguishing it from siblings like get_symbol or search_symbols.

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?

Explains when to use (ambiguous names) and provides ranking criteria, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like get_symbol for exact matches.

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