get_symbol_info

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

With no annotations, the description has the full burden. It discloses zero-based coordinates and the need for load_project. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, what happens for invalid positions, or error behavior. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise with clear sections: purpose, usage, output, important note, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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, the description partially compensates by listing output fields (kind, modifiers, signature, location). However, it lacks details on return type, error handling, or performance implications. Completeness is moderate but could be improved for a tool with no output 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds no new semantic value beyond reinforcing zero-based coordinates, which the schema already states. The description's 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' is redundant, so minimal added value.

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 tool retrieves detailed information about a symbol at a position. The verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about any symbol' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_type_at_position or get_enclosing_element, which also return symbol info but perhaps different detail levels.

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 usage context: position on any symbol (type, method, field, variable) and a prerequisite (load_project). However, no guidance is given on when NOT to use it or alternative tools for similar tasks, such as get_type_at_position for type-specific info.

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