symbol_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the composite nature of the call (it fuses hover, definition, and references into one response and groups references by file), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of saying whether the lookup is strictly read-only, how ambiguity or zero-match cases are handled, or whether results are truncated.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concrete call example before the routing advice. The "What is X and where is it used?" framing and the example are mildly redundant with the following sentence, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the return contents (header, hover, definition, references grouped by file), and it covers the sibling routing an agent needs. It is only slightly thin on ambiguity behavior and the undocumented include_references flag.

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 for four bare parameters. It explains that query is an alias for name and that file_path disambiguates a match, but it never mentions include_references (or its default true) or the expected string form of name beyond the example, so half the parameters remain undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource framing ("One-call summary for a JS/TS name") and enumerates exactly what is returned: header, hover text, definition, and references grouped by file. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling chain search_symbol → hover → definition → references and with css_var/selector, so an agent can place it without opening 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?

It states when to use it ("the usual first lookup") and what it replaces, and gives explicit when-not guidance by routing CSS/HTML cross-file lookups to css_var / selector. It also names the disambiguation condition for file_path, leaving nothing to inference.

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