lsp-mcp-server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains the dry-run default behavior (preview vs. apply changes), which isn't captured in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'rename' aligns with readOnlyHint=false.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key behavioral detail (dry-run default). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (mutation with workspace-wide impact), annotations cover safety aspects (idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds crucial behavioral context (dry-run default). However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., preview changes format), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only implying that parameters like file_path, line, and column identify the symbol to rename. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('rename') and resource ('a symbol across the workspace'), specifying the scope of the operation. It distinguishes from siblings like lsp_find_references (which finds but doesn't rename) and lsp_document_symbols (which lists symbols).

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 clear context by mentioning 'across the workspace' and the dry-run default behavior, which helps understand when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like lsp_code_actions (which might include rename) or when not to use it (e.g., for local vs. global renames).

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