nav_workspaceSymbols

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is authoritative, slower, and enforces a minimum query length. However, it does not mention error handling, authorization needs, or confirm read-only nature, which is a minor gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values. It only says 'symbol search', leaving the result format ambiguous. It also does not mention the truncation behavior implied by the tokenBudget parameter's schema description, which is a gap. However, the tool is relatively simple, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 33% (only tokenBudget has a description). The description adds rationale for query minLength ('to avoid result floods') but does not describe the limit parameter or provide additional context for tokenBudget beyond the schema's own description. The added value is minimal.

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 tool does 'Live workspace-wide symbol search from the language server' and distinguishes it from the sibling map_search by noting it is authoritative but slower, and provides explicit use cases: 'use when the map is stale or missing, or to confirm a map_search hit.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance vs alternative map_search, and specifies a constraint ('Query must be ≥3 chars to avoid result floods'), making it clear for an agent to decide.

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