get_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the output is a 'flat list' and implies a read-only operation, which is useful. However, it lacks explicit disclosure of side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters. The description is accurate but minimal.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides an alternative. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 is simple (list symbols) and has no output schema. The description explains what it returns and when to use a different tool. It covers the essential context for an agent to decide to invoke it. A perfect score would require more detail on the exact structure of each symbol (e.g., name, kind, range), but the current description is sufficient given the tool's straightforward purpose.

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%, and the schema already defines the three parameters (file, limit, offset) with clear descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'symbols defined in a file', and the output format 'flat list'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_outline' by explicitly noting that hierarchical structure should use that tool.

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 description provides explicit guidance to use 'get_outline' for hierarchical/nested structure, which is a clear alternative for a related use case. However, it does not address when to use this tool versus the many other siblings (e.g., get_hover, get_completions), which are for entirely different purposes, so the context is adequate but not exhaustive.

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