ps_symbol_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns the full symbol with all grounding context,' which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'grounding context' entails, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve a directive symbol by ID') and adds a useful detail about the return value. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 low complexity (a simple read operation with 3 parameters) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is somewhat complete. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally explain more about the return format (e.g., what 'full symbol' and 'grounding context' include) and behavioral aspects like error handling, leaving room for improvement.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'symbolId' or the implications of 'include_changelog'. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'directive symbol by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ps_symbol_get' vs 'ps_symbol_list' or 'ps_symbol_stats', which would require a 5.

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 'ps_symbol_list' for listing symbols or 'ps_symbol_stats' for statistics. It mentions what the tool does but not when it's the appropriate choice among the many sibling tools.

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