git_history_for_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the behavior (resolve a symbol, list commits) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what happens on symbol resolution failure, or any side effects. The user must infer that it is a safe read operation.

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 that gets straight to the point. It is concise but may sacrifice necessary detail. Every word earns its place, but the description could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 and moderate complexity (6 parameters, symbol resolution), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return format, error handling (e.g., ambiguous symbol, symbol not found), or prerequisites (e.g., repository must be indexed). The tool needs more context for an AI to use it 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?

The description adds no meaning to the six parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the role of each parameter (e.g., id, ref, lang, symbol, allow_ambiguous) but fails to do so. The parameter semantics are entirely opaque without external knowledge.

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 it resolves a symbol and lists commits touching its file. It distinguishes from git_history_for_path by emphasizing 'symbol-scoped history without needing the path.' However, it does not differentiate from other symbol-related sibling tools like papertrail_for_symbol or commits_touching_query.

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. The description implies it is for symbol-scoped history but does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for different needs (e.g., using git_history_for_path if a path is known).

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