get_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. It mentions extraction but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has performance implications. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured parameter and return explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with indentation could be slightly improved for clarity.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains parameters but lacks behavioral context, error handling, and output details (only mentions 'Dictionary of symbols by type' without structure). This is inadequate for a tool with no structured support.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., 'Types of symbols to extract (functions, classes, imports, etc.)'). However, it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap, as it lacks details on formats, constraints, or examples for parameters like 'project' and 'file_path'.

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 the verb 'Extract' and the resource 'symbols from a file', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ast' or 'analyze_complexity', which might also involve file analysis, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., project must be registered) or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage criteria beyond the basic purpose.

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