Find ACS symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the transformation and output fields (name, number, file:line) but omits failure behavior, prerequisites, and the role of the optional dir parameter. The 'symbol(s)' hint is vague about multiple results.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and resource. The profiler example is illustrative without unnecessary detail, making it efficiently structured.

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 the essential purpose, ref interpretation, and output shape. However, the unexplained dir parameter and lack of error behavior prevent a perfect completeness score.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that ref accepts a script number or name, but the optional dir parameter is completely unexplained. This partial explanation yields a mid-range score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource (script number or name to symbol(s)) with clear output fields. The profiler example distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_scripts and list_functions.

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 example 'Turns a profiler script 1017 into a source location' provides a clear use case. It establishes context for when the tool is appropriate but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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