code.symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — only exported symbols are returned — and states that signatures are included in the result, which is useful given the absence of an output schema. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination/limit behavior, or what happens with an invalid or empty scope.

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 with no filler; the core action and resource come first. It is perhaps slightly under-specified rather than over-long, which keeps it from being wasteful but also leaves gaps.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys purpose, scope semantics, and return content adequately. It falls short on sibling differentiation and on limit/pagination behavior, which is the main missing piece.

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 50%: 'scope' is documented in the schema and the description reinforces it as a path prefix, but 'limit' (default 50) is undescribed in both schema and description. The description adds the notion that scope is a path prefix and that results carry signatures, but does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('exported symbols (functions, classes, types)') scoped to a path, which is far more concrete than a name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like code.map, code.trace, or code.understand, which an agent would need in order to choose correctly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (code.map, code.understand, code.reach) that a caller would compare against. Usage can only be inferred from the word 'List' and the path scope.

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