lsp-mcp-server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('file path, line, and column of the definition'), which is not covered by annotations, though it lacks details on error handling or server requirements.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second specifies the return values, making it front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks output schema details (e.g., exact return structure) and does not address potential errors or server dependencies, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema fully documents the parameters (file_path, line, column). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the symbol selection logic or position validation.

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 specific action ('Navigate to the definition') and resource ('symbol at the given position'), distinguishing it from siblings like lsp_goto_type_definition or lsp_find_references by focusing on symbol definitions rather than type definitions or references.

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 for navigating to symbol definitions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lsp_goto_type_definition or lsp_find_references, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active LSP server.

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