lsp_analyze_change_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions composing multiple LSP calls but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or permissions needed. It adequately describes what it does but not the full behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a clear 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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description could explain what the output looks like (e.g., format or structure of the impact report). It covers the scope but lacks details on return values and full behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond parameter names and defaults; parameters like 'includeCallees' are self-explanatory but no extra context is provided.

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 specifies it analyzes the likely impact of changing a symbol using LSP-only semantic data, listing components like hover, definition, etc., and explicitly states it does not call AST tools, distinguishing it from many siblings.

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?

It provides context that it composes multiple LSP features and excludes AST tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. not use, or alternatives among the many sibling tools like lsp_inspect_symbol or lsp_references.

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