qcli_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it resolves the source from the project's node_modules when installed, otherwise falls back to the latest npm version, and it states the return is a declaration including JSDoc. The version-resolution fallback is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage hint. The trailing list of five example symbols is slightly long but functions as concrete grounding rather than filler. No redundant restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by saying exactly what is returned (a TypeScript declaration with JSDoc) and where it is sourced from (local node_modules or npm latest). For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `symbol` and `package` are already documented, including the @qodalis/cli-core default and the "cli-core" shorthand. The description reinforces usage with concrete symbol examples (ICliCommandProcessor, ICliExecutionContext, ...) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource: retrieving the TypeScript declaration (with JSDoc) for a named symbol from @qodalis packages. It enumerates the symbol kinds (interface, type, class, function, enum, constant) and gives concrete examples, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with qcli_docs_search/qcli_docs_read, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

"Use it for exact member names and signatures" gives a use condition, which is more than nothing. But there is no exclusion or routing rule against the sibling docs tools — an agent must infer that this is for precise signature lookup while qcli_docs_search is for prose/narrative discovery.

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