get_repo_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the process (running a command and filtering rows) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention side effects, or disclose potential errors or permissions needed. While it implies a safe read operation, that is 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 well-structured with a brief summary line, a clear parameter list, and a returns section. Each parameter is explained concisely without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with five parameters and avoids unnecessary prose.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: the command executed, parameter meanings, return type, and intended output readiness for printing or writing. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively, though it omits error handling details, which are not typically required.

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 schema has no descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail, including exact semantics like 'Exact values allowed in the **Type** column' and 'post-filter'. It also clarifies the meaning of None for each optional filter, which is essential for correct usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run `kit symbols <repo>`', clearly stating it retrieves and filters repository symbols. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_symbol_usages and smart_code_search, which focus on different aspects.

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 description implies usage by explaining what the tool does and how filters work, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison or exclusion criteria are provided for sibling tools.

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