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 safety is covered. The description adds useful context that omitted/empty configurations mean 'all contexts', but says nothing about timeout behavior, result limits, or latency of a workspace-wide symbol search.

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, the core purpose front-loaded and the default-scoping rule immediately after. Efficient with no filler, though extremely terse given the 0% schema coverage it must compensate for.

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 needn't be described, but with three params at 0% schema coverage and only one partially addressed, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently (e.g. query format, timeout units).

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 but only partially covers one of three params (configurations). The required 'query' and the 'timeout' param receive no explanation of syntax, matching semantics, or units.

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+resource ('Find workspace symbols'), which is clear and unambiguous. It is implicit that 'workspace' scope contrasts with the sibling clangd_document_symbols, but the description never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Explains the behavior of the configurations parameter but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over clangd_document_symbols, clangd_references, or workspace_text_search. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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