get_document_symbols_code

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates the operation is a read ('gets') and specifies the output includes hierarchical structure and line numbers. However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., supported file types, large file behavior, or whether it parses only certain languages), which is a modest gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes meaningful detail. Every word adds value and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete mental model of what the tool returns: a complete outline with hierarchy and line numbers. It could be slightly more explicit about file type support or error conditions, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema fully documents 'path' and 'maxDepth'. Therefore, the description does not need to compensate.

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's function: 'Gets complete symbol outline for a file showing hierarchical structure and line numbers'. This uses a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('symbol outline'), and the added details about hierarchical structure and line numbers distinguish it from sibling tools like search_symbols_code (searching) and get_symbol_definition_code (single symbol).

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 description clearly implies usage: when you need a full symbol outline of a file with hierarchy and line numbers. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to differentiate from search/definition tools.

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