get_tb_file_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does usefully mention the error-suggestion behavior when the path is not in the compile set, which is a real behavioral trait. However, it does not address whether the operation has side effects, preconditions like a prior build, or any caveats about the compiled set.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the conditional error behavior is added compactly. Every sentence contributes.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two wholly undocumented required parameters, the description is not complete enough. It explains what is returned and one error scenario, but omits the role of 'handle', the output shape, and any preconditions, leaving an agent to guess before invoking.

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%, so the description must clarify both parameters. It gives only indirect meaning for 'path' via the compile-set/error-suggestion note, but 'handle' is entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know what values to provide.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a precise resource: symbols (modules/classes/interfaces) defined in a single compiled file. This is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_tb_subtree or lookup_tb_files beyond the implicit 'single compiled file' scope.

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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The only behavioral note is about error suggestions for wrong paths, which is not usage routing.

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