lib_get_symbol_info

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

Annotations are empty, so the description bears full responsibility. 'Return details' implies a side-effect-free read operation, but it does not describe error conditions, required permissions, or what constitutes 'details'. The minimal phrasing adds little beyond the tool 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for its simple scope, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks situational context. It does not mention how this differs from searching symbols or retrieving component details, leaving the agent to infer when this specific lookup is appropriate.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. Parameter names (library, symbol_name) are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional semantics, format expectations, or relationships are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('details for a single symbol'), which clearly distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like lib_search_symbols. However, 'details' is somewhat vague and does not differentiate from other detail-returning tools such as lib_get_component_details.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for symbols and components, the description offers no context for selection.

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