get_context_for_symbol

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the output is a summary respecting a token budget and includes specific content families, which is useful. However, it says nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, or failure modes.

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 compact sentence. It front-loads the core behavior and packs the itemized contents into a list without redundancy or padding, making it fast for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by indicating what the tool returns and what conditions are relevant. It does describe the returned summary areas and the budget behavior, but it omits side effects, prerequisites, or any relationship to the sibling tools, leaving the calling context only partially complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so file, name, and budget are already documented. The description adds the idea that the output is fitted to the budget, and implies that the listed content types are the requested context, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: it produces a budget-aware summary of a symbol, and enumerates the concrete contents (kind, signature, effect row, doc, callers, callees). This distinguishes it well from the sibling tools, which target narrower concerns like lookup_definition or explain_effect_row.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description's only implicit signal is the token-budget-aware framing, but it does not tell the agent that this tool should be preferred over siblings like lookup_definition or explain_effect_row, or under what conditions.

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