link_code_to_symbols

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the 'best-effort' nature and the _meta.bridge_available field, offering some transparency. However, it does not discuss failure modes, performance, or dependencies beyond mentioning jcodemunch-mcp importability.

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: first for purpose, second for return format. Concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from breaking into more structured details.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain error handling or prerequisite conditions (e.g., jcodemunch-mcp installation), which are important for tool selection.

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 params have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions tokenization but does not elaborate on parameter meanings like repo identifiers or limits. Baseline at 3 is appropriate.

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: bridging doc code blocks to jcodemunch code symbols by tokenizing identifiers and looking them up. It is specific and distinguished from sibling tools like find_code_examples or search_sections, which do different things.

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 cross-referencing code in documentation with symbols, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.

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