workspaceSymbol

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuine behavioral detail (the >= 2 character substring minimum), but says nothing about result limits, matching semantics (case sensitivity, fuzzy vs exact), or whether the search spans all open files.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the key constraint is placed immediately after the operation name. The terse 'workspace/symbol in this file's server' phrasing is a bit cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 annotations, no output schema, two required parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do considerably more. It leaves the mandatory 'file' argument undefined and gives no sense of what a successful result looks like or how results are bounded.

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 neither parameter has a schema description. The description partially compensates for 'query' by specifying substring matching and the 2-character floor, but the required 'file' parameter is never explained at all — an agent cannot tell whether it is the file to search within, the file providing context, or a file to exclude.

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 concrete retrieval operation (finding stored theorems by substring) with a stated scope ('workspace/symbol'), which is more specific than a bare restatement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling symbol tools such as documentSymbol or references, so an agent must infer the scope distinction from the word 'workspace' alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus documentSymbol, references, or definition, and no preconditions or exclusions. The only actionable guidance is the embedded substring rule (>= 2 chars), which is a constraint rather than usage routing.

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