clangd_workspace_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 no behavioral context beyond that: no scope of search, no return shape, no cost/rate behavior. The 'empty configurations' line describes a parameter rather than a trait.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is tersely worded ('Empty configurations selects all') but earns its place by clarifying a default.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero schema-description coverage, no usage guidance, and only one of three parameters clarified, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains only that empty configurations selects all, leaving the required 'query' semantics and the 'timeout' parameter undocumented anywhere. That is well short of compensating for a 3-param, zero-coverage schema.

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: 'Find workspace symbols by name query.' The scope ('workspace symbols' vs the sibling 'document_symbols') is implicit in the name, so an agent can mostly distinguish it, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from clangd_document_symbols.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many clangd_* siblings. The only contextual hint is the configurations behavior, which is a parameter detail, not usage routing.

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