get_document_symbols

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that output depends on server support (hierarchical vs. flat) and offers a compact markdown format. It does not mention side effects, auth, or performance, but as a read operation this is mostly adequate.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the action, stating its use case, and detailing a parameter. No filler or repetition. Highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and output variants, but lacks details on required preconditions (e.g., file must be open), error scenarios, and the role of 'language_id'. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would be helpful.

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%, yet the description only explains the 'format' parameter's 'outline' option. It does not describe 'file_path' or 'language_id', leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names. This is insufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 retrieves all symbols (functions, classes, etc.) from a document via LSP, returning either a DocumentSymbol tree or SymbolInformation list. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_workspace_symbols' by specifying document-level scope.

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 advises using the tool to 'get a structural overview of a file' and mentions the 'outline' format for LLM consumption. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., get_symbol_documentation) or state when not to use it.

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