explain_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It implies a read operation by stating it 'Retrieve's data, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or failure modes. The lack of contradiction is neutral, but additional clarity would help.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or clutter.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the expected return elements (definition, qualified name, range, direct structural context), which provides sufficient information for an agent to understand what will be returned. It does not cover error handling or result format, but for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, this is reasonably complete.

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 description does not add significant meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already describes the 'query' parameter as 'The symbol name to explain.' The description echoes that without details on format, case sensitivity, or constraints. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves definition, qualified name, range, and direct structural context for a symbol. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('symbol name'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_definition or get_symbol_context, which may overlap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer it over similar tools like get_definition or get_symbol_context, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions.

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