documentSymbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the core behavior of listing top-level symbols with ranges, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any edge cases, errors, or performance characteristics.

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 sentence of 13 words, immediately front-loading the action ('List') and the resource ('every top-level symbol'). There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (two string params) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for invocation. It specifies the scope and what is returned (symbols with ranges), though it does not cover potential edge cases or limit behaviors.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that 'path' is a file path 'within repo', establishing the relationship between the parameters and their roles. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'every top-level symbol (with its range)' scoped to 'path within repo'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like goToDefinition, findReferences, and searchCode, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for obtaining an overview of symbols in a file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. It relies on the agent inferring context from sibling tool names.

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