get_module_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves symbols 'without detailed signatures', hinting at limited output detail, but fails to describe critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., invalid module names), performance (e.g., speed for large modules), or output format (e.g., list of symbols vs. structured data). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap, scoring 2 for vague behavioral hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all exported symbols...') and adds a key constraint ('without detailed signatures'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding, earning a 5.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output (what symbols look like), error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context for effective use, but it falls short, scoring 2 for being under-specified relative to the tool's needs.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'moduleName' as 'The module to analyze'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples for 'filePath' usage or constraints on 'root'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('exported symbols from a TypeScript/JavaScript module'), specifying the scope ('without detailed signatures'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_definitions' by focusing on exported symbols from a module rather than local symbols or definitions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_definitions'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a module name) or exclusions (e.g., not for detailed type analysis). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction, scoring 2 for minimal implied usage from the purpose alone.

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