get_symbol_detail

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, or side effects. Additional context like rate limits or destructive potential is missing.

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 concise and structured, with a purpose sentence followed by argument and return lists. Every sentence is useful and no extra fluff. However, it could benefit from a brief usage note or context.

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?

While the description covers basic function and parameters, it misses contextual completeness: no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'get_call_graph' or 'explain_function'. Given the output schema exists, return details may be redundant.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides brief explanations: 'project root directory' for path, 'file path (project-relative)' for file, and 'symbol name' for name. This adds basic meaning but lacks format constraints or clarity on symbol naming conventions.

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 it returns detailed information of a symbol, listing specific fields like signature, callers, callees, and complexity. This distinguishes it from some siblings, but lacks explicit differentiation from tools like 'explain_function' or 'get_call_graph' which may overlap.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for the project to be scanned first, nor does it exclude cases where other tools would be more appropriate.

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