axon_pro_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does partially discharge it by disclosing the scope of data returned. It never states that this is a read-only/non-destructive operation, nor does it mention performance, traversal depth, or cost characteristics that matter for a graph-expansion tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded immediately after the verb. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the work of telling the agent what categories of results to expect, which is the key missing structured information. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, though a brief note on read-only behavior would close the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Name of the symbol to look up'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description reinforces that the input is a symbol but adds no format, scoping, or qualification detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 pairs a specific verb (Get) with a specific resource (a symbol) and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: callers, callees, type references, and community membership. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with overlapping siblings like axon_pro_impact or axon_pro_related_files.

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 phrase '360-degree view of a symbol' implies this is the broad, all-in-one lookup to reach for when you want general context about a symbol, which is a usable implied cue. However, it names no alternatives and states no when-not conditions, leaving the agent to guess how it differs from impact, related_files, or file_context.

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