codelattice_symbol

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the single-project-root prerequisite and describing the job lifecycle with progress tracking. It does not go into deeper edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 two focused, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the scope and resource, and the second gives actionable mode-selection guidance with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 complex 14-parameter, multi-mode tool, the description covers the main decision paths and the job workflow while the schema covers the remaining parameter details. It does not explicitly mention graph mode or output shape, but the annotated read-only safety profile and rich schema make the definition sufficiently complete.

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 86%, so the individual parameter descriptions already carry most of the meaning. The tool description adds only modest value by clarifying the root scoping and the job-mode sequencing, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as performing 'symbol-level queries' scoped to 'a SINGLE project root,' and it differentiates internal query modes (search/context vs. callers/callees/call_chains). This distinguishes it from siblings like codelattice_workflow or codelattice_cache, which are not symbol-query tools.

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 gives explicit mode-selection guidance: use search/context when a symbol or name is known, use callers/callees/call_chains for relationships and flow, and use mode=job followed by job_status/job_detail for large projects. This directly tells an agent when to choose which behavior.

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