list_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (line ranges for declared symbols) and scopes the tool to Java files, but it does not explain behavior for non-Java files, handling of repo refs, or error conditions. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core capability and then attaches the use case. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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 simple listing tool, the description covers what it returns and why to use it, but omits parameter context (especially repo/owner/ref) and any output format beyond 'line ranges.' Without annotations or an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity for invocation in a repository context.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of path, repo, owner, or ref. The only implicit hint is 'Java file,' but none of the four parameters are semantically clarified, so the agent must infer their roles from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('symbols') while enumerating the exact symbol types and including 'line ranges,' making the tool's function precise. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_file_contents by positioning itself as a symbol-finder for get_code_fragment.

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 'use this to find a symbol name to pass to get_code_fragment,' giving clear contextual purpose and a downstream alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the forward reference to get_code_fragment provides sufficient usage guidance.

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