ctx_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format, lists the JSON fields, and reveals that the result is an array because a name may resolve in multiple files. It does not cover error behavior or permission requirements, but for a read-only symbol lookup these are minor omissions.

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?

Four concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and output shape, the second gives usage conditions, the third names the alternative workflow, and the fourth clarifies an important return-behavior nuance. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and why the result may be an array. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with ctx_skeleton or ctx_dependencies, and by stating what happens when no symbol is found, but these are gaps rather than fatal omissions.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, calling it an 'Exact symbol name' and giving examples. The description essentially repeats this by saying 'already know the exact symbol name' and does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return deep detail for a single symbol as JSON', followed by the exact output fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from ctx_search by stating that exact names are required, while fuzzy discovery belongs to ctx_search. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool: 'when you already know the exact symbol name' and need definition, signature, methods, references, and dependencies. It also provides a direct alternative and workflow: use ctx_search first for fuzzy discovery, then ctx_symbol for the best match. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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