symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real context by disclosing the output row format, module grouping, and paging behavior. It stops short of stating result ordering, what an empty result means, or how paging interacts with count_only, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what is returned and in what shape, the second handles disambiguation. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select or call the tool.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so precisely (demangled `kind addr name` rows grouped by module, paged). Combined with the fully documented schema and safe-read annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the kind enum and defaults; the description only echoes paging and module grouping. That meets the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema with no added semantics such as filter matching rules or limit/count interplay.

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 ("List") plus the exact resource set (imports, exports, forwards, locals, data) and the row shape (`kind addr name` rows by module). It also names the two siblings it is not (functions, xrefs), so an agent can separate it from adjacent tools without opening a 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 explicitly what the tool is not for and routes the agent to the correct alternative in each case: discovered code goes to `functions`, call sites go to `xrefs`. That is a concrete when-not plus named alternatives, not implied guidance.

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