get_symbol_definition_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by mentioning 'using hover data' and listing the output components (type, docs, source), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, dependency on hover data availability, or any side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 filler. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core function and output content (type, docs, source). It could be more complete with error handling or prerequisite notes, but for a read-only hover-data tool, it covers the essentials.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (path, line, symbol) with descriptive text, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond this, aside from implying that 'line' and 'symbol' reference locations for the hover data. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 gets definition information for a symbol, specifying the source (hover data) and the content (type, docs, source). This sufficiently differentiates it from sibling tools like search_symbols_code or get_document_symbols_code, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. A specific verb and resource are present, making the purpose clear.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a symbol and line number are known, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or distinctions from sibling tools like search_symbols_code or get_document_symbols_code. The description lacks explicit usage context.

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