get_undocumented_symbols

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'best-effort' and a note about _meta.bridge_available=false, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it lacks details about performance or result limits.

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, front-loaded with purpose; concise but the first sentence is slightly dense. Could be slightly clearer about the relationship between parameters.

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?

With no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description does not explain what the output looks like or how to interpret results. The tool's role among many siblings is not fully contextualized.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description mentions 'code_repo' but does not explain all three parameters. The distinction between 'repo' and 'code_repo' is unclear, and 'max_symbols' is not described at all.

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 enumerates symbols in a code_repo and returns those not documented, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_doc_coverage by focusing on inverse coverage.

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 implies usage for finding undocumented symbols, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternatives like get_doc_coverage or search_titles.

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