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, indicating a safe, deterministic read operation. The description adds value by specifying the type of information returned ('type info, documentation'), which isn't covered by annotations, but doesn't detail rate limits, auth needs, or output format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loads the purpose ('Get hover information') and includes key details without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, error handling, or dependencies on server status. Annotations cover safety, but without output schema, the description could better explain what 'hover information' entails.

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 descriptions for file_path, line, and column. The description adds minimal semantic context by linking parameters to 'given position' but doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers, such as format specifics or constraints.

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 'Get' and resource 'hover information' with specific content types ('type info, documentation') and target ('symbol at the given position'). It distinguishes from siblings like lsp_goto_definition or lsp_find_references by focusing on hover details rather than navigation or references, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 hover information is needed for a symbol at a position, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lsp_signature_help or lsp_completions, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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