papertrail_for_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'cached' but does not explain what 'current context' entails, whether the tool is read-only, any authorization needs, or side effects. The description is insufficient for transparent behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core functionality. However, it lacks parameter details which could be added without significantly increasing length. Overall, it is efficient but not maximally informative.

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 the complexity of 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify what 'current context' includes, how to use the parameters, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0% and the tool description does not explain any of the 6 parameters. The schema has a meta description about select_symbol but no parameter-specific guidance, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the parameter names.

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 resolves a symbol and returns context plus cached GitHub rationale, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'papertrail_for_chunk' and 'papertrail_for_commit'.

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 such as 'rationale_search' or 'git_history_for_symbol'. The context signals and sibling list indicate many similar tools, but the description offers no usage differentiation.

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