git_history_for_symbol

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the two-step process (resolve symbol, list commits) but omits critical behaviors such as read-only status, error handling on unresolved symbols, handling of ambiguity (despite allow_ambiguous parameter), output format, or pagination. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no safety annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and differentiator. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It lacks information on return value structure, parameter interactions, error scenarios, and how limit or allow_ambiguous affect behavior. Even for a simple tool, the description leaves too much unspecified.

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 coverage is only 14%, with only worktree having a description. The tool description adds minimal parameter context: it mentions symbol-scoped history and not needing the path, which hints at symbol and worktree, but leaves id, ref, lang, limit, and allow_ambiguous unexplained. This does not compensate 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?

Clearly states the tool resolves a symbol then lists commits touching its file, explicitly highlighting the distinction from path-based history via 'without needing the path'. This precisely defines the resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings like git_history_for_path.

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 implies when to use it (when you have a symbol, not a path) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides context but lacks direct exclusionary guidance or comparison to sibling tools like git_history_for_path or papertrail_for_symbol.

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