get_workspace_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions speed ('fast', 'faster') and 'supports fuzzy matching,' which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it discuss authorization, side effects, or rate limits. For a search tool, read-only behavior can be inferred, but more transparency would be ideal.

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?

The description is extremely concise at 48 words spread across three sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second gives usage guidance, the third describes a key feature (fuzzy matching). No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of a sibling 'find' tool, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and a notable feature. It does not describe the return format, but the tool name ('get_workspace_symbols') implies returning symbol objects. For a straightforward search tool, this is sufficient; it could mention the return type but is not severely lacking.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it repeats that the query is for symbol names). With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fast symbol search across the workspace by name.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (symbols), and scope (workspace). It also differentiates from the sibling 'find' tool, establishing a distinct use case.

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?

Explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool: 'Faster than the find tool for simple name lookups.' This directly helps an agent decide between this and alternatives. It also implies when not to use it (complex lookups) without being overly verbose.

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