get_undocumented_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description discloses 'best-effort' (non-exhaustive) and the availability condition (_meta.bridge_available=false). This covers key behavioral traits, though it omits read-only/destructive nature and error cases.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and add a behavioral note. No wasted words, each sentence adds value.

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 description covers core purpose and one behavioral detail, but lacks explanation of return format, parameter details, and completeness guarantees. Given no output schema or annotations, more completeness would be needed for a tool listing symbols.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only partially explains 'code_repo' (jcodemunch code_repo). The parameters 'repo' and 'max_symbols' are not described, leaving ambiguity for all three parameters.

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: enumerate symbols in a code repo and return those not in the doc index. The phrase 'best-effort inverse coverage' distinguishes it from related tools like get_doc_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?

Usage context is implied (finding undocumented symbols), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives mentioned among the many siblings.

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