expand_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It only states the action 'load the full implementation' but doesn't disclose what exactly is returned (e.g., source code, metadata), whether it requires a project path or file path for disambiguation, or any error behavior. The one-line description lacks essential behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It clearly states the purpose and the workflow context, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both input parameters and return behavior. It fails to explain the role of optional parameters, what 'full implementation' includes, or how the returned data is structured. While simple, the lack of context around optional file_path and project_path leaves the agent guessing.

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 the three parameters. It doesn't explain what file_path and project_path mean or how they relate to symbol_name. The description only mentions 'one symbol', leaving the optional parameters completely undocumented, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate them.

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 uses the specific verb 'Load' with a clear resource 'full implementation of one symbol', and explicitly ties it to symbols returned by semantic_code_search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like semantic_code_search (search) and dep_graph (dependencies).

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?

The phrase 'returned by semantic_code_search' provides a clear workflow context: this tool should be used after obtaining a symbol from semantic_code_search. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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