extract_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: only the exact implementation is returned, top-level imports are included, and the rest of the file is omitted. This gives the agent a clear model of the operation's outcome. It does not, however, mention edge cases like missing symbols or multiple definitions.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('Surgically extracts only the exact implementation') and immediately follows with the key constraints. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is extracted, what is included, and what is omitted. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the output format explicitly or what happens when the symbol is not found. Those are minor gaps given the low 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'symbol' refers to a function, class, method, or interface, and implies 'path' is a source file path, but it does not add meaningful syntax, format, or resolution details beyond the schema.

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 states a precise verb ('extracts'), a specific resource ('implementation of a named function, class, method, or interface'), and a distinctive scope ('top-level imports, omitting the rest'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like condense_source or compress_log.

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 the intended use case—pulling a single symbol's implementation while saving tokens—but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions. The usage context is present but only implicit.

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