get_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that ambiguous names return candidates rather than a single result, which is real behavioral information, but it says nothing about not-found behavior, errors, or whether the result is authoritative.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the ambiguity caveat. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the candidate-on-ambiguity note covers the main behavioral surprise. The remaining gap is the absence of any tie-breaker against the sibling search_symbols tool.

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 0% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the accepted name forms (bare, qualified, repo:qualified). It stops short of giving a concrete example or syntax rules beyond the labels.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (one symbol), and scopes it to a single symbol so it is distinguishable from bulk retrieval. However, it never mentions the sibling search_symbols, which an agent would need to weigh against this tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when not to use it. The reader must infer from 'one symbol' that this is for known names rather than discovery, and the obvious alternative (search_symbols) is never named.

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