ide_symbol_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches using the IDE index, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, potential staleness of the index, whether it returns only symbol definitions, or any error conditions. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for the simplicity of the tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the action.

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 low complexity (2 params) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the IDE index is, what constitutes a 'symbol' (e.g., classes, functions, variables), what the return format looks like, or any performance or caching implications. The agent lacks essential context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'query' or 'workspaceId' at all. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess what values the query should take (e.g., a symbol name fragment) and how workspaceId is used.

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 action ('Search workspace symbols') and the mechanism ('using the IDE index'), making the core purpose understood. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'find_symbol' or 'search_code', which could also be symbol or code search, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active IDE connection), context (workspace symbols vs. file text), or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and brief description.

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