Wick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires a connected LSP server (implied by 'gd_lsp' prefix but not confirmed), error handling for invalid files, performance characteristics, or return format details. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every element earns its place by specifying the tool's function and target.

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 complexity of LSP operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., symbol hierarchy, types), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like gd_lsp_connect. For a tool that likely interacts with a language server, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'filePath' documented as 'Absolute path to the .gd file'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as file format requirements or path validation rules. With high schema coverage, 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 states the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'document symbols (functions, variables, classes)' for a specific resource type 'GDScript file'. It distinguishes from siblings like gd_lsp_definition (gets definitions) and gd_lsp_hover (gets hover information) by specifying it retrieves structural symbols rather than other LSP features.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a given GDScript file', suggesting it should be used when analyzing script structure. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like gd_lsp_definition for definitions or project_info for project metadata, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring the file to exist or be valid.

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