memory_for_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return operation, implying a read-only action, but provides no details on side effects, error handling, or limitations. There is no mention of how the logical-symbol group behaves or any special cases, falling short of even minimal disclosure.

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, succinct sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, earning a full score despite its brevity.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is highly insufficient. It does not explain the logical-symbol group concept, return format, parameter interactions, or any edge cases. This leaves the agent without essential context for correct usage.

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 17%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'symbol' explicitly but does not explain id, ref, limit, or allow_ambiguous. The worktree parameter already has a schema description, but the others remain unexplained, leaving a substantial gap.

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 repo memories bound to a symbol, with a mention of a logical-symbol group. It uses specific language ('Return memories bound to a symbol') and distinguishes from siblings like memory_for_path (path-based) and memory_search (search-based), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The resource (symbol) and verb (return) are clear, earning a 4.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_for_call_path or memory_search. The description only states the function, offering no context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a clear gap.

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