workspace_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'initialized project workspace' without defining initialization or explaining if the operation is read-only, returns multiple results, or any other effects.

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 very short, which is concise, but it is too brief to be useful. It does not earn its place well because it omits essential details that could be added in the same length.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and an output schema, the description gives no context about how the search works, what symbols are returned, or how the parameters affect the results. It is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 parameter descriptions coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the parameters (query, file_path, limit, offset). The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the tool searches for symbols in a workspace, which is clear in basic function. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like document_symbols, which also search symbols but within a document, missing a chance to clarify scope.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like symbol_info or document_symbols. The description lacks context for selection.

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