get_symbol_documentation

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

Though no annotations are provided, the description details the tool's behavior: fetching from toolchain, returning doc text, signature, source tag, and graceful fallback on failure. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 concise and front-loaded, with each sentence adding value: purpose, method, scope, return contents, and fallback behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the overall purpose and return structure but lacks explanation for format and file_path parameters, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It implicitly covers symbol and language_id, but does not describe format or file_path, leaving their meaning and purpose unclear.

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 fetches authoritative documentation for a symbol using local toolchain docs, distinguishing it from LSP-based tools. It specifies supported languages (go, pydoc, cargo doc) and notes it works on transitive dependencies not indexed by the language server.

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 explains when to use this tool (without LSP hover, for transitive dependencies) and mentions graceful fallback, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_symbol_source or get_document_symbols 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.