lib_symbol_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by scoping the return payload (metadata only, no .esym source) and routing the caller elsewhere. It stops short of describing errors or behavior when the UUID is not found, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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, zero waste, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the negative/alternative clause. Nothing here could be deleted without losing routing value.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, classification, description) and explicitly excluding the source body. Combined with the fully documented input schema and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 all three parameters (including instance_id's multi-instance rule and libraryUuid's default) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by UUID' and adds no format, default, or edge-case meaning beyond that. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a library symbol's metadata') plus the key ('by UUID'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from source retrieval by naming what it does NOT return. An agent can separate it from lib_symbol_open_in_editor and document_get_source without reading any schema.

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 names the alternative path explicitly ('use lib_symbol_open_in_editor + document_get_source') for the case the agent actually wants source content, which is the most likely reason to call the wrong sibling. That is an explicit when-not plus named alternatives.

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