lsp-mcp-server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about workspace-wide scope and position-based targeting, which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations (read-only operation aligns with 'find'), but could mention performance implications or result format.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose, zero wasted words. Every element ('find all references', 'to the symbol', 'at the given position', 'across the workspace') contributes essential information efficiently.

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 read-only query tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what it does and scope. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe result format (e.g., list of locations with metadata), which could help the agent interpret returns. Sibling context is partially addressed through implicit differentiation.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how position parameters interact or clarify workspace boundaries). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'find' and the resource 'references to the symbol', specifying the scope 'across the workspace' and the location constraint 'at the given position'. It distinguishes from siblings like lsp_goto_definition (single definition) and lsp_workspace_symbols (symbol search without position).

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 implies usage when needing all references to a specific symbol, but doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like lsp_find_implementations (for interfaces) or lsp_smart_search (broader search). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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