get_symbol_detail

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose what the call returns (signature, parameters, relationships, file location) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention failure modes, exact-match requirements, permissions, or cost. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful content list. It is efficient, but the unexplained 'Tier 3' terminology introduces slight ambiguity and prevents a perfect structure score.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks information about repo_name format, symbol_name disambiguation, whether the repo must be synced, and what 'Tier 3' means relative to the sibling tools. These gaps are significant for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does not explain repo_name or symbol_name formats, ambiguities, or relationships, even though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory. The mention of 'parameters with types' refers to the returned symbol's parameters, not the tool's own inputs.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('Tier 3 detail for a specific symbol'), and it enumerates the retrieved content. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_file_context or search_context, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_repo_overview, get_file_context, or search_context. No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are provided; usage is only implied by the tool's name and basic purpose.

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