lsp-mcp-server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it searches 'by name' and implies fuzzy matching (via the schema), but doesn't disclose additional traits like performance characteristics, error handling, or result format. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with some added context.

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 core purpose ('Search for symbols') and key scope ('across the entire workspace'). There is no wasted verbiage, and 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 (search with filtering), rich annotations (safety and behavior hints), and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output details (no schema provided) and doesn't explain result structure or usage scenarios, making it complete enough for basic use but with gaps for optimal agent operation.

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 parameters like 'query' (fuzzy matching), 'kinds' (filtering), and 'limit' (default 50). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond implying a name-based search, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Search for symbols') and scope ('across the entire workspace by name'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lsp_document_symbols (likely limited to a single document). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., lsp_smart_search might also search symbols), making it very good but not perfect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lsp_document_symbols or lsp_smart_search. It mentions the scope ('entire workspace') but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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