lsp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only the single phrase 'Read-only.' That is a useful safety signal but nothing about failure modes, latency, whether it depends on an active LSP session, or what the caller learns from a negative result.

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 short fragments, front-loaded and waste-free. It is arguably over-terse rather than padded, but 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 zero-parameter status probe with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the minimum (what it is plus read-only) but omits what the status actually conveys to the caller. A returning agent gains no expectation about the shape or meaning of the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No argument syntax, defaults, or filtering options are needed here.

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?

Names the resource (language server status) and not much else. It doesn't say what aspect of status is reported (running servers, capabilities, readiness) or how it differs from the sibling lsp_diagnostics or lsp_symbols, so an agent must guess at the boundary between this and other LSP tools.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus the other lsp_* siblings, nor any precondition such as whether a language server must already be attached or how to react when status reports a failure.

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