symbol_occurrences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does and the return type, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific file permissions, what happens with invalid paths/line numbers, if it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, args, and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the sections more fluidly, but overall it's 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (returns a dict), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two parameters, the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects and usage context. It covers the basics but leaves gaps in error handling, permissions, and sibling differentiation, making it minimally adequate.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'filePath' as 'Absolute path to the file' and 'lineNumber' as 'Line number in the file', which clarifies what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples (e.g., lineNumber starting at 0 or 1). This gives some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('symbols occurring at a specific location in a file'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_occurrences' by specifying it's for symbols at a location rather than general occurrences, but doesn't fully differentiate from 'search_pattern' which might also involve file locations. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_occurrences' or 'search_pattern'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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