link_code_to_symbols

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), so the description does not need to state that. It adds value by noting the 'best-effort' nature (non-guaranteed success) and describing the return structure (by_block, by_symbol, _meta with bridge_available). This goes beyond annotations.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second explains process and return value. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence contributes meaning. No redundancy or filler.

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 has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description provides the essential information: purpose, process, return structure, and a dependency note (jcodemunch-mcp importability). It lacks explicit error handling or performance caveats, but is mostly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about the overall process (tokenizing and looking up) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. For a tool where the parameters are fairly self-explanatory (repo identifiers), this is adequate but not compensatory.

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: 'Best-effort bridge from doc code blocks to jcodemunch code symbols.' It identifies the specific verb (bridge) and resources (doc code blocks, jcodemunch symbols), and it distinguishes itself from siblings because no other sibling performs this linking function.

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 explains the process ('For each block, tokenizes identifiers and looks them up via jcodemunch's search_symbols'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusionary context.

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