clones_for_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (candidate class or null) and conditions, but omits details on error handling, precedence of parameters, or whether it is a read-only operation. It adds some transparency but not comprehensive 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all key conditions. Zero wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (candidate class or null) and conditions. However, it does not describe the structure of the candidate class, parameter interaction details, or edge cases. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps given five parameters.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It mentions id, ref, and path+line as input forms, giving meaning to four parameters, but does not explain how they relate (alternatives vs combined) or the worktree parameter. Partial compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 returns the clone class for a symbol, specifying input forms (id/ref/path+line) and conditions (fingerprinted, has siblings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_clones by focusing on a single class result, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_clones, nor exclusions. The description implies usage (for getting a clone class of a symbol) but offers no context about prerequisites or comparisons.

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