docs_for_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a preference for local context but does not explain what that means, nor does it describe side effects, permissions, or return formats (no output schema). The lack of detail leaves the agent uninformed about how the tool behaves beyond the vague preference.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly terse and sacrifices critical content for brevity. It is concise but not appropriately structured for a tool of this complexity.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically insufficient. It does not explain how to specify the symbol, what the limit or include flags do, what edge_kinds and resolution mean, or what the returned documentation looks like. This is a severe gap for a tool with such rich schema.

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 22%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It implies the 'symbol' parameter but does not clarify the roles of id, ref, limit, include, worktree, edge_kinds, resolution, or allow_ambiguous. With 9 parameters, the description must compensate for the low schema coverage but fails to do so.

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 finds documentation for a symbol, specifying it covers markdown chunks and doc comments. The phrase 'preferring local context before broad docs' adds a scoping nuance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_for_symbol or symbol_lookup by focusing on documentation retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention other tools like memory_for_symbol or find_callers, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The 'preferring local context' note is about internal behavior, not usage selection.

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