get_symbols_overview

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description does not contradict this, as 'Get' aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it does not disclose details like what 'symbols overview' entails, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, the description meets a baseline but lacks rich behavioral insights.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Get symbols overview for a file.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with 3 parameters (one required) and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it does not clarify parameter usage or behavioral nuances. The annotations cover read-only safety, but overall, the description is adequate only as a minimal starting point, lacking depth for effective tool invocation.

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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics—it does not explain what 'relative_path', 'depth', or 'max_answer_chars' mean or how they affect the output. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description fails to compensate, but it does not mislead, so it scores at the baseline for minimal value.

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 'Get symbols overview for a file' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('symbols overview for a file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'find_symbol' or 'find_referencing_symbols', which might have overlapping functionality, leaving the scope vague. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'find_symbol' for specific symbols or 'list_dir' for file listings. This lack of usage context makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct tool among siblings.

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