inspect_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by documenting the return shape of resolve ({resolved,symbol,offset,section,file,line}) and the meaning of resolved=false, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 tightly packed sentences with the general purpose stated first, then the operation-to-argument mapping, then the one non-obvious return contract. The terse notation is efficient and front-loaded, though it is dense enough that it reads more like a reference line than prose.

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?

With six operations and no output schema, an agent needs return-shape information for each mode, but only resolve is documented; it is unclear what size, type, address, functions or variables return. The tool's purpose and argument mapping are complete, but the return contract is only partially covered.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond it by binding each operation to its expected argument — size(expr), type(expr), address(symbol), functions([regex]) — clarifying which of the six parameters pairs with which what value. The bracket notation on regex also communicates that it is an optional filter.

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 names a specific capability ('Symbol / type introspection') and enumerates all six operations via the what= syntax, so an agent immediately knows this is a symbol/type query tool rather than a memory or register reader. It does not explicitly name which siblings to prefer (read_variable, expressions, load_symbols), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 operation list implies what each mode is for (size/type/address/resolve/functions/variables), which is more than nothing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the many sibling introspection tools. Usage must be inferred from the operation names.

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