clangd_document_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default-selection behavior of the configurations array but says nothing about return shape, timing, or clangd-server dependency; with annotations and an output schema present, this is an acceptable but thin addition.

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 short sentences, purpose first, parameter note second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety duties, and the configurations semantics are covered. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, 'path' (what counts as a managed file) and 'timeout' semantics remain unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the configurations default ('empty selects all'), which is genuinely useful, but leaves 'path' and 'timeout' entirely undefined, so it only partially covers the three parameters.

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 and resource ('List the symbols declared in a managed file'), which distinguishes it from the sibling clangd_workspace_symbols (project-wide) by scoping to a single file. The term 'managed file' is slightly jargon-y but understandable in context.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like clangd_hover, clangd_definition, or clangd_workspace_symbols. The only usage-ish statement ('Empty configurations selects all') is about parameter behavior, not tool selection.

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