explain_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it aggregates data but does not clarify if it's read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. A read operation is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the key idea but does not provide enough information to be fully actionable.

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 tool's complexity (aggregating multiple data sources) and absence of output schema or parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about the returned summary format, prerequisites, or potential errors.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'symbol_id' with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about what the parameter represents (e.g., a numerical identifier). This is a significant gap.

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 it aggregates multiple aspects (definition, refs, endpoint, git) into a summary. The verb 'aggregate' is specific, but it doesn't fully differentiate from using multiple sibling tools separately.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_symbol, find_references, etc. It implies usage when a comprehensive summary is needed, but lacks when-not or exclusion criteria.

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