get_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions efficiency ('Efficient for loading related symbols'), which is a useful trait, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid symbol IDs), or what happens if some symbols aren't found. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds efficiency context. Both sentences earn their place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and efficiency but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it's not entirely inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('repo' and 'symbol_ids'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get full source code of multiple symbols in one call.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('full source code of multiple symbols'), and scope ('in one call'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_symbol' (singular) or 'search_symbols', which would require a 5.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Efficient for loading related symbols' suggests this tool is optimal for batch retrieval when symbols are related. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_symbol' (for single symbols) or 'search_symbols' (for finding symbols), nor does it mention exclusions, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.

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