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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the tool returns line bounds, that it is meant to be paired with source for efficient reads, and that it yields roughly 4-15x fewer tokens. This gives the agent a clear model of how the tool behaves in a workflow.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first gives the core function, the second explains the intended workflow and benefit, and the third names the alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list tool with one required parameter, the description is complete: it states what is returned, how to use the result, and when to choose a different sibling. The input schema handles parameter details, and annotations handle safety, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents filePath, commitSha, projectId, repository, and the feedback object in detail. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond implying the target is a single file; it does not need to compensate because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List symbols in one file', and names the exact output fields ('name + kind + line bounds'). It also distinguishes itself from find_node and source by positioning the tool as the first step of a two-step read, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: as Step 1 of a two-step read, with the follow-up action spelled out ('pass startLine/endLine to source (op:read)'). It also names the alternative for a different need: 'For one symbol + signature, use find_node {symbol, filePath}'. This is clear, actionable routing guidance.

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