get_workspace_symbols

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

Describes the read-only behavior of returning symbols with name, kind, location, and enrichment via detail_level. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential side effects, but the LSP context implies safety.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and base return, second details detail_level behavior, third explains pagination with defaults. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately specifies return fields (name, kind, location) and enrichment results (hover info). Covers pagination behavior. Missing mention of result limits or handling of large sets, but overall sufficient for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains all four parameters: detail_level (with valid values 'omit', 'basic', 'hover'), limit (default 3), offset (default 0), and query (search term). It clarifies their effects and pagination usage.

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 'Search for symbols across the entire workspace via LSP' with verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document_symbols (document-scoped) and go_to_symbol (single symbol) by specifying 'entire workspace' scope and returning multiple symbols with details.

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 guidance on when to use different detail_level values ('omit'/'basic' for names/locations, 'hover' for type signature/docs) and how limit/offset control paginated enrichment. However, it does not contrast with other symbol tools like get_document_symbols for document-specific searches.

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