lsp-mcp-server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate read-only, non-open-world, and idempotent operations, the description explains this is a 'comprehensive symbol search combining multiple LSP operations in one call' and that it's 'more efficient than calling multiple individual tools.' This provides important context about performance characteristics and composite behavior that annotations don't cover.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence defines the tool's comprehensive nature and lists specific operations. The second sentence provides crucial usage guidance about efficiency compared to alternatives. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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 (combining multiple LSP operations), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the composite nature and efficiency benefits. The main gap is lack of output schema documentation, but the description compensates somewhat by listing what information will be returned (definition, references, implementations, etc.).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions the tool combines multiple LSP operations, which aligns with the 'include' parameter's enum values, but doesn't provide additional guidance about parameter usage or interactions.

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 performs 'comprehensive symbol search combining multiple LSP operations' and lists specific operations (definition, references, implementations, type info, call hierarchy). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it's 'more efficient than calling multiple individual tools' and names specific sibling operations it replaces.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'More efficient than calling multiple individual tools' indicates this should be used when needing multiple LSP operations simultaneously rather than calling separate tools like lsp_goto_definition, lsp_find_references, etc. This directly addresses when to choose this tool over its many siblings.

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