ps_symbol_format

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. It mentions the output ('Returns LLM-ready text') but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the symbolId is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it at least indicates the return type.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or integration context. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 100%, with clear documentation for symbolId and format (including enum values and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of formatted output or details on format styles. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 action ('Format a symbol') and the purpose ('for inclusion in a prompt'), with a specific outcome ('Returns LLM-ready text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ps_symbol_get or ps_symbol_list by focusing on formatting rather than retrieval or management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ps_symbol_update or ps_symbol_verify, which could involve symbol content.

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. It doesn't mention scenarios like preparing symbols for AI processing, contrast with ps_symbol_get for raw data, or specify prerequisites such as needing an existing symbol. Usage is implied by the phrase 'for inclusion in a prompt,' but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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