get_symbol_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool uses zero-based coordinates and requires load_project. It also summarizes output content ('kind, modifiers, signature, location'), providing insight into behavior beyond a simple fetch.

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 brief yet comprehensive, using clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT) without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it easy for an AI 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?

Given no output schema and three parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, output summary, coordinate system, and prerequisite. There are no obvious gaps for an information retrieval tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical meaning by highlighting that coordinates are zero-based. This is essential for correct parameter usage and goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about any symbol at a position', distinguishing it from similar tools like get_type_at_position or get_method_at_position. It specifies that it works on any symbol (type, method, field, variable).

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 provides explicit usage instructions: 'Position on any symbol (type, method, field, variable)', notes coordinate system ('Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates'), and states prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first'. It does not explicitly compare with siblings but gives sufficient context for correct use.

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