get_symbol_documentation

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

Describes key behaviors: uses local toolchain commands, returns full doc text, signature, and source tag, and falls back gracefully on failure or unsupported language. No annotations, so description carries burden and does it well.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded, behavioral traits are compactly listed. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite good purpose and behavior description, the complete absence of parameter documentation and no output schema leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters. Agent cannot know what to provide for file_path or format.

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 0% and description provides no detail about the four parameters (symbol, language_id, file_path, format). The agent has no guidance on what values to pass, making selection difficult.

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?

Clearly states it fetches authoritative documentation for a named symbol using local toolchain sources, distinguishing it from siblings like get_symbol_source (source code) and get_document_symbols (symbol lists). Specifics (go doc, pydoc, cargo doc) add precision.

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?

Explicitly says it works without LSP hover and on transitive dependencies not indexed by LSP, giving clear when-to-use context. However, no explicit exclusions or alternatives named, though siblings imply other documentation tools.

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