workspace_symbols

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about match semantics (substring, prefix, fuzzy, case sensitivity), result limits, ordering, or whether the operation is read-only. For a search tool where matching behavior determines result quality, these are material gaps.

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 that names the action and scope before the trailing clause. The trailing ellipsis and comma list are slightly untidy but cost little.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string, no output schema to explain), but the description leaves out what a result contains (symbol kind, location) and how matching works, both of which an agent needs to use results correctly. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the single `query` param has no schema description, but the description does add one meaningful fact: the query is matched against symbol names rather than file contents. It still leaves the match mode unspecified, so the compensation is only partial.

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 ('search') and a concrete resource covering modules, interfaces, packages and classes, plus the scope 'project-wide'. That scope implicitly separates it from document_symbols, but no sibling is actually named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 phrase 'project-wide' implies when this is appropriate (searching across the workspace rather than within one file), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as document_symbols. Usage must be inferred.

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