get_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying read-only, but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., codebase must be indexed), error handling (e.g., symbol not found), or whether it triggers any side effects. These gaps reduce transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and specifies the returned information. No wasted words, achieving high conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and the type of returned data (definition location, type signature, callers, callees). However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., symbol not found, unindexed codebase) and does not clarify whether the response is a list or single item. This makes it adequate but not fully 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context: 'codebase' is explained as the name used when calling index_codebase, and 'symbol' as a fully qualified or partial name for search. This extra semantics aids the agent in correctly populating parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific symbol', listing the exact details returned (definition location, type signature, direct callees, direct callers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_symbols (which searches) and trace_callees/trace_callers (which likely trace deeper).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., trace_callees, impact_analysis). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage from purpose alone.

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