Index workspace symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses persistence, SQLite versus JSON fallback, and the per-root additive behavior rather than replacement. It could also mention cost or idempotency, but what it says is genuinely informative.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, when to run it, and the important per-root indexing caveat. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation: purpose, workflow placement, storage behavior, and indexing granularity. A return-value note would improve completeness but is not essential for this side-effectful tool.

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 100%, so both root and maxFiles are already documented. The description adds only a modest clarification that root is the source directory being indexed; it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding 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 a specific action and resource: parsing supported source files into a persisted symbol index. It also names the index contents (definitions, identifier occurrences, call sites), making it distinct from the read/search siblings listed.

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 says to run the tool once before find_references / go_to_definition, which provides clear workflow context. It does not enumerate alternatives or conditions when not to use it, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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