lsp_close_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It states that the document is closed and removed from tracking, but does not explain side effects (e.g., loss of unsaved changes, whether the file itself is affected, or if the document must be open beforehand). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact.

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 sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without waste.

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 low complexity (simple close action) and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but falls short of fully complete. It does not state that the document must be open first, nor does it mention the LSP notification aspect, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., filePath is described as 'Absolute or workspace-relative path,' language as 'Language server to use'). 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 action (close a document), identifies the LSP protocol method (textDocument/didClose), and specifies the effect (remove it from tracking). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like lsp_open_document and lsp_save_document.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lsp_save_document, lsp_sync_document). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be open) or when not to use it (e.g., if unsaved changes exist).

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