codebase_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates the tool returns information (definition, kind, etc.) implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 that efficiently combines purpose, content (definition, kind, callers, callees, confidence levels), and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with '360° view' and contains no extraneous information.

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?

The description lists the key pieces of information returned (definition, kind, callers, callees, confidence levels), compensating for the lack of an output schema. It does not address potential confusion with sibling 'codebase_symbols' but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a '360° view of a symbol' including specific details like definition, callers, callees, and confidence levels. It specifies the verb 'view' and the resource 'symbol', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'codebase_symbols' (plural) which likely returns a list.

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?

The description explicitly advises use 'to understand a function or class before changing it', providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use or offer alternative sibling tools like 'codebase_impact' or 'codebase_flow'.

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