Inspect Symbol

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: retained reads are safe, but 'explicit execution options can run isolated semantic or runtime inspection,' which explains why readOnlyHint is false and warns that execution is possible. It does not detail side effects or the runtime capsule behavior, but the schema covers those details, so the description still earns credit for shaping expectations.

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 two tight clauses with no filler. It front-loads the main read action and then adds the important execution fork, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 has a complex 7-parameter schema with detailed per-parameter descriptions and an output schema, so the description does not need to restate everything. However, it omits high-level context such as the prerequisite relationship to resolve_library and when to choose execution profiles, leaving some gaps that an agent must infer or discover from the schema.

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 high (86%), so the schema carries most parameter semantics. The description's phrase about execution options roughly maps to the execution parameter, but it does not add meaning beyond what input schema descriptions already state. A baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read retained symbol evidence,' which distinguishes symbol inspection from sibling tools like read_artifact or search_evidence. It also notes a secondary behavior (explicit execution for semantic/runtime inspection), giving a clear functional identity. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_evidence, resolve_library, or read_artifact. The phrase 'retained symbol evidence' implies a use case, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when the execution options should be selected.

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