workspace_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions that returns include a 'status'/'message' if initializing, hinting at potential initialization states, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to adequately disclose behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, though the return description could be more concise. No wasted text, but minor room for tightening.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately, and the output schema handles return values, but it lacks context on usage scenarios, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a search tool with workspace scope, more guidance would be helpful.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'query' is for 'symbol name or pattern' and 'file_path' helps 'determine which project to search'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by clarifying parameter purposes, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., query syntax or file path patterns).

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 as 'Search for symbols in the workspace' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('symbols in the workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'document_symbols' (which likely searches within a single document) by specifying workspace scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'definition' or 'references'.

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 usage through the parameter descriptions: 'query' for searching symbol names/patterns and 'file_path' to determine which project to search. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'document_symbols' or 'definition', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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