document_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result comes from clangd's hierarchical symbol view and the operation is a read-only list, but it does not mention prerequisites such as an open/indexed file or what happens for unparseable inputs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase adds useful information: action, scope, and method.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is minimally viable: it states what is returned (declarations) and the hierarchical organization. But without annotations or an output schema, it leaves gaps around return shape details and any practical constraints (e.g., requiring clangd to be ready).

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%, so the description must clarify the 'file' parameter. It adds that the file is a C++ source or module unit, but it does not specify path format, accepted extensions, or URI/absolute-path expectations, leaving much of the parameter semantics unexplained.

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 names a specific action ('List declarations') and resource ('C++ source or module unit'), and clarifies the method ('clangd's hierarchical symbol view'). It is clear enough to distinguish from workspace_symbols by scope, though it does not explicitly reference siblings.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need declarations from a single C++ source/module unit rather than workspace-wide search. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names.

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