list_symbols

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON with total count and symbol names, and mentions the limit parameter. However, it does not discuss side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is purely read-only (though implied).

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?

Description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for parameters, one for returns. No unnecessary words, all information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description provides the purpose, parameter, and return format, which is adequate for a simple tool with an output schema. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus siblings, and does not discuss error handling or edge cases.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for the only parameter: 'limit: Maximum number of symbols to return (default 100)'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and default, adding value beyond the schema's type and default.

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?

Description states 'List available SF Symbol names' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_symbols (which searches) and get_symbol_info (which gets details for a specific symbol) by focusing on listing all available names.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_symbols or get_symbol_info. The description does not mention use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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