workspace_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching, a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention result format, behavior on no matches, or any edge cases. For a read-only search tool this is acceptable but not rich, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the fuzzy-matching detail is added in a second compact sentence. Every word 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?

For a simple single-parameter search tool, the description covers the key aspects: what is searched, the scope, and matching behavior. The lack of output schema means return details are not specified, but this is not critical for a search operation. Sibling context is adequately handled by the scope phrase.

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 100% and the query parameter is simply described as 'Symbol name to search for'. The description adds meaning by noting that fuzzy matching is supported, which clarifies how the query will be interpreted beyond the literal schema. This goes beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('symbols across the entire project'), and a key differentiator ('by name'). The phrase 'across the entire project' distinguishes it from sibling document_symbols, which likely operates on the current file. This is precise and 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when searching project-wide rather than in a single file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'across the entire project' provides clear context that differentiates it from file-scoped siblings. A slight deduction for not explicitly mentioning when not to use it.

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