symbol_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It states the tool is a lookup returning address and access info, which implies a read operation. However, it does not mention what happens if the symbol is not found, any prerequisites (e.g., program halted), or performance characteristics.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args section and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, lookup operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about error behavior (e.g., symbol not found) and the format of the returned address and access info.

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 provides the parameter name, type (string), and examples (e.g., 'main', 'g_counter'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema alone. The examples clarify acceptable values.

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 action (Look up a debug symbol), the resource (by its name), and the outcome (get its address). It distinguishes from the sibling tool symbol_by_address which uses a different lookup method.

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 symbol_by_address or other symbol-related tools. The description only explains what it does, not in what context it should be preferred.

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