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 composite return shape (header, hover, definition, references grouped by file) and the query alias for name. It doesn't state read-only nature, defaults, or limits, and an output schema partly covers returns, but the aggregation behavior itself is well communicated.

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 the question 'What is X and where is it used?', then a concrete example, then the substance and the CSS/HTML escape hatch. Every sentence earns its place; the example adds cost but also genuine invocation clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description helpfully summarizes what comes back and where to go for non-JS/TS lookups. Only the include_references flag and any disambiguation failure behavior are left unaddressed.

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 compensate. It explains name, the query alias, and file_path's disambiguation role, but says nothing about include_references — a boolean defaulting to true that materially changes the call. Three of four parameters are covered, one silently ignored.

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 operation over a specific resource: a one-call summary for a JS/TS name returning header, hover text, definition, and references. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling chain (search_symbol → hover → definition → references), so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

Names this as 'the usual first lookup' and gives the negative case ('For CSS/HTML cross-file lookups use css_var / selector instead'), plus the disambiguation condition for file_path. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all explicit.

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