lsp_workspace_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing confidence level, dependence on index completeness, and a version requirement. It also describes the returned behavior ('all symbols matching the query string'). It does not mention failure modes or prerequisites beyond the version, but the provided context is genuinely useful.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a helpful analogy, a summary of behavior, and two critical operational caveats. Each sentence adds distinct value and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, behavior, confidence, and a version requirement. The main missing piece is explicit routing relative to lsp_document_symbol, and whether an initialized LSP session is required, but the overall context is adequate.

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?

The input schema has a single 'query' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says the query is a 'query string' and that symbols 'matching' it are returned, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare property name. No format, case-sensitivity, wildcard, or matching semantics are documented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('symbols across the entire workspace'), and contrasts with lsp_document_symbol by emphasizing workspace-wide scope. The Ctrl+T / Go to Symbol analogy reinforces the intent and makes the tool immediately recognizable.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to find symbols workspace-wide, like an IDE's Go to Symbol. It does not explicitly name lsp_document_symbol as the alternative or state when not to use it, but the 'across all indexed files' phrasing implies the workspace-vs-document distinction.

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