get_symbol_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the zero-based coordinate convention and the prerequisite of load_project. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, or error handling.

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 concise, broken into clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT), and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. Every sentence contributes value.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and a critical behavioral detail (zero-based coordinates). It could further detail the output format, but it is largely complete for effective use.

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. The tool description adds context about the position usage ('Position on any symbol') but does not significantly enhance the parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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's function: 'Get detailed information about any symbol at a position.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools like 'go_to_definition' and 'get_type_at_position' indicate distinct 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 provides important usage context such as 'Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates' and 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It does not explicitly compare to alternatives but the prerequisites and coordinate system are clearly stated.

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