Get Symbols Overview

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies this is for 'high-level understanding' and 'top-level symbols,' clarifies it should be called first for new files, and mentions the return format ('JSON object'). This goes beyond annotations by providing usage context and output expectations.

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 three concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third describes the return format. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, and return format without needing to explain parameters or output details that are already in structured fields. It provides exactly what an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'top-level symbols' which relates to the 'depth' parameter's default behavior, but this is already covered in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'get a high-level understanding of the code symbols in a file' with specific verb ('get') and resource ('code symbols in a file'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_symbol' (specific search) or 'read_file' (raw content) by focusing on symbol overview. The description explicitly positions it as the first tool for understanding new files.

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 explicit guidance: 'This should be the first tool to call when you want to understand a new file, unless you already know what you are looking for.' This gives clear when-to-use (initial exploration) and when-not-to-use (when specific symbols are already known), distinguishing it from alternatives like 'find_symbol' for targeted searches.

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