opencode_lsp_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating that it returns status. It does not mention scope behavior, prerequisites, or any other context beyond what the structured metadata already provides.

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 a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action, expands the acronym, and every word earns its place.

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 read-only status tool with a fully documented optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient to identify the tool's purpose. It lacks sibling-related usage guidance, but that gap is already captured in the usage dimension.

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 single optional directory parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description itself says nothing about parameters, but because the schema carries the burden, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of LSP servers'), and it expands the LSP acronym for clarity. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like opencode_mcp_status and opencode_formatter_status by the explicit LSP focus, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opencode_health, opencode_status, opencode_mcp_status, or opencode_formatter_status. The optional directory parameter is documented in the schema, but the description itself provides no usage context, exclusions, or decision criteria.

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