workspace_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must carry transparency. It only states the search action and combined scope, without mentioning result shape, grouping, pagination, read-only behavior, or workspace-scoping constraints, which an agent would need.

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 redundant restatement of the tool name. It could say more about behavior, but as a concise lead it earns its place.

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 tool is structurally simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so the required context is small. Still, with no annotations and no return-value information, an agent cannot tell what a successful search returns or how modules are represented in results.

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?

The schema has only a bare 'query' string at 0% description coverage; the tool description implies query is the search text for symbols/modules but adds no syntax, matching semantics, empty-query behavior, or examples. This does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names concrete resources ('clangd symbols and named C++ modules'), plus the 'in one request' qualifier distinguishes it from separate module/symbol search siblings. It does not elaborate on what counts as a symbol, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'In one request' hints that this tool is for combined symbol-and-module searches rather than using separate siblings, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance. There are no exclusions or named fallback tools such as module_search.

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