lsp_setup

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the tool may mutate state and access external resources. The description adds a vague behavioral detail about returning a 'recommended_actions plan,' but it's unclear whether the tool actually configures bindings or merely recommends actions for the agent to execute. It does not disclose side effects of bind/unbind modes or prerequisites like project_root, so it fails to provide meaningful context beyond 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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Returns a guided recommended_actions plan...') is vague and could be more informative without adding length, so it slightly loses efficiency.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, 4 modes, and no output schema, so the description must explain overall behavior and return format. It only provides a vague 'recommended_actions plan' with no details on its structure or interpretation. It also omits important constraints like how mode affects behavior or when compile_db_path is needed, leaving the description incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 each parameter having a clear description (e.g., mode enum, language filter, compile_db_path override). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but given the schema already handles semantics, a baseline 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 tool's function: 'Inspect and configure deterministic LSP command bindings for bundled language plugins.' This is specific with a clear verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like suppress/analyze/status, which focus on other concerns.

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 through 'Returns a guided recommended_actions plan for search/install/config workflows,' suggesting it's for setup tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of when to prefer lsp_setup over sibling tools like set_workspace or write/edit.

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