lsp-mcp-server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as performance characteristics, rate limits, or what 'implementations' entails (e.g., across workspace or project). It does not contradict annotations, but offers minimal extra value.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (code analysis with positional parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal but adequate with annotations covering key behavioral traits. However, it could benefit from more context on usage scenarios or result format to better guide an agent without output schema information.

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%, with clear documentation for all parameters (file_path, line, column, limit). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the tool uses the position parameters to identify the interface/method or default behavior for limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose as 'Find all implementations of an interface or abstract method,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'lsp_goto_definition' or 'lsp_find_references,' which may have overlapping functionality in code navigation contexts.

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. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active LSP server) or comparisons to sibling tools like 'lsp_type_hierarchy' or 'lsp_call_hierarchy,' which might serve similar purposes in different scenarios.

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