symbol_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the ambiguity fallback behavior (candidates are listed back so you can retry). It does not state safety/read-only nature, but for a pure lookup tool that is low risk, and the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with a question and a concrete example, then the one-call framing, then parameter notes. Every block earns its place, though the description is slightly longer than needed given the output schema already documents the return payload.

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 4-param lookup tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and three of four parameters, including disambiguation behavior. The undocumented include_references flag is the only meaningful omission.

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 the description must compensate; it explains name vs. dotted Class.method, the query alias, and file_path semantics relative to the workspace root. It leaves include_references (default true) entirely undocumented, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a one-call summary for a symbol name returning header, hover text, definition, and references grouped by file. It explicitly names the sibling chain (search_symbol → hover → definition → references) that it replaces, so an agent can distinguish it from those tools without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'the usual first lookup instead of chaining' the alternatives, and describes the ambiguity escalation path (retry with a narrower name or file_path). When-to-use and how-to-recover are both spelled out.

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