get_document_symbols

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 only mentions 'hierarchical list of all symbols', leaving out details like whether it includes unsaved changes, performance implications, or error handling for missing files.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is overly minimal. It states the purpose concisely but omits useful context, making it less than optimal for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality. However, it lacks details about behavior (e.g., empty results, file not found) and does not leverage the opportunity to differentiate from siblings beyond the hierarchical aspect.

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 100% (file_path described as 'Absolute path to the source file'), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema already provides adequate meaning.

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 states 'Get a hierarchical list of all symbols in a document', which clearly identifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('symbols'), and scope ('in a document'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., find_definition, find_implementations) by indicating it returns all symbols hierarchically, not a specific one.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where this is preferred (e.g., exploring document structure) or exclusions (e.g., not for symbol-specific lookups).

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