swebsy_list_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the output structure and the meaning of health categories, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. Although listing is intuitively safe, the description could be clearer about behavioral guarantees beyond the returned data.

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 fairly long but every sentence adds value: purpose, output fields, health details, and usage pointers. It is front-loaded with the core action and then elaborates. Slight verbosity in the health report could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, field names, health report interpretation, repair pathway, and typical placement in a workflow. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for anything, and it appropriately focuses on output semantics.

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 states the tool lists the project's SYMBOLS, defines what they are, and enumerates the returned fields. It also references two sibling tools (add_symbol_instance and promote_to_symbol) that it pairs with, making its role distinct from other list tools like list_blocks or list_pages.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool before add_symbol_instance to find the symbol id, and points to promote_to_symbol for repairing broken linkage. This gives concrete when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't discuss exclusions or cases where another list tool would be preferable.

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