List symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at scope ('top-level' rather than nested, one file) but says nothing about return format, error behavior for unsupported file types, or what 'supported' languages are.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It leaves unclear what a 'symbol' is, how results are ordered/shaped, or how it differs from the numerous sibling symbol-listing tools.

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% and the single 'path' parameter has no schema description. The phrase 'one supported source file' loosely implies path targets a source file, but format (absolute vs relative), language constraints, or expected inputs are never clarified.

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 (List) and resource (top-level symbols) with a clear scope constraint (one supported source file). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like lsp_document_symbols or search_symbols, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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 on when to use this versus the many sibling symbol tools (lsp_document_symbols, search_symbols, lsp_workspace_symbols). The only hint is the implicit 'one file' scope, with no conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites stated.

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