lsp-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe operation), openWorldHint=false (requires specific parameters), and idempotentHint=true (repeatable). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it implies this is a query operation but doesn't mention what kind of suggestions are returned, whether they're filtered by context, or any rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration or examples that would dilute the message.

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 annotations provide good safety/behavioral information and the schema has 100% coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what 'suggestions' actually look like (completion items with labels/types/details), leaving the agent uncertain about the return format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more context about the response would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how the position parameters interact, what 'suggestions' actually contain, or how the limit parameter affects results. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get code completion suggestions') and the resource ('at the given position'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lsp_signature_help' or 'lsp_hover' which also provide language intelligence at positions, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose completions over other LSP features.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 16 sibling LSP tools available, there's no mention of when completions are appropriate (e.g., during typing) versus when to use 'lsp_goto_definition' or 'lsp_find_references', nor any prerequisites like requiring the server to be started first.

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