Search workspace symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that results come from the LSP and span the whole project, but it does not disclose timeout behavior, potential need for an active language server, or return format. This is comparable to the get_calls example.

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?

Two concise sentences immediately state the action, scope, method, and intended use. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 simple 2-parameter schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and implementation. It lacks an explicit alternative mention, but the 'whole project' scope strongly implies a contrast with document-local 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 100%, so the schema already documents both query and wait_ms. The description reinforces that query is a symbol name or prefix, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond 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 clearly states the tool searches symbols across the whole project via LSP, with a specific use case: finding a definition by name without knowing the file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nvim_document_symbols and nvim_goto_definition.

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?

It explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'find a definition by name without knowing the file.' This provides clear context but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so a small gap remains.

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