workspace_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'instant, uses the LSP index' reveals the underlying mechanism and performance expectations, and 'Returns names, kinds, and source locations' clarifies the output shape. While it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only,' the word 'Search' strongly implies a non-destructive operation, and no contradiction exists.

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 two sentences, tightly written, and front-loaded with the core action ('Search for symbols'). Every clause earns its place: the symbol types, workspace scope, LSP mechanism, uri restriction, and return content. No redundant or filler language.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is searched, how to narrow the search, what the result includes, and the performance characteristic. It also covers parameter usage (uri optional vs. default workspace-wide) and return shape, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query semantics ('by name or substring') and the uri restriction, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already documents — the schema already describes uri as 'restrict the search to this ONE document' and query as 'Symbol name or substring... case-insensitive.' Thus the description adds only marginal value on top of the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Search'), the resource ('symbols across the entire workspace'), and the scope ('by name or substring'). It names symbol types (functions, types, variables, constants) and includes a distinguishing trait ('uses the LSP index'), which separates it from text-search siblings like search_in_files and workspace_search.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching symbols workspace-wide) and explains how to narrow scope with the uri parameter ('Pass uri to restrict the search to that one document instead'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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