list_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output includes type and dimensions, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (which seems obvious) or any potential performance implications (e.g., large workspaces). It also doesn't clarify the exact format of the returned list.

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 one concise sentence, front-loading the key verb and object. It is efficient and avoids waste, though a second sentence could add more value (like usage guidance).

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 tool is simple (no params) and has an output schema that can describe the return structure. The description covers the essential information: what it lists and what it returns per symbol (type and dimensions). This is adequate for a simple list operation, though it lacks explicit guidance on alternatives and performance caveats.

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 tool has no parameters (0 params), and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description effectively covers the parameter semantics by being clear about the tool's scope.

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 lists every symbol in the workspace with its type and dimensions. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('symbols in the workspace') and distinguishes from siblings like describe_symbol (which likely describes a single symbol) and get_matrix (which retrieves a specific matrix).

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 this is the go-to for getting an overview of all symbols, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like describe_symbol or get_matrix. Given the context of sibling tools, some guidance on scope (e.g., 'for details on a single symbol, use describe_symbol') would improve this.

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