Open Kioku List Symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: 'reads from the local index only' and mentions pagination. This goes beyond annotations, warranting a 4.

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 plus exclusion clause, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler. Concise yet comprehensive.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature (list/filter), the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned (symbol name, kind, file path, line range), pagination, substring filtering, and read-only nature. Complete for its purpose.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description reinforces parameter usage (pagination via limit/offset, substring filtering via query) but does not add new semantics. Baseline 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 uses specific verbs (list, substring-filter) and resource (indexed code symbols) and lists example types (functions, classes, structs, traits, interfaces). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_symbols, get_definition, and get_symbol_context.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use: 'Do NOT use for fuzzy or ranked symbol search (use search_symbols), for retrieving a symbol's full definition body (use get_definition), or for comprehensive symbol context (use get_symbol_context).' This provides clear guidance for agent to select correct tool.

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