lsp_fix_diagnostic_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool composes multiple LSP features and explicitly avoids AST context, which is useful behavioral info. However, it omits whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes multiple LSP requests, or any side effects. The transparency is partial but not misleading.

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 very concise, with two sentences that cover the core purpose and a key constraint. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but as a concise statement it works well.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It does not describe the return value structure (fix candidates), how they are composed, or how to interpret the result. With many sibling tools, it lacks context on when this composite tool is preferable. The agent is left with significant unknowns.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating the tool composes code actions, hover, definition, and signature help, but this is more about purpose than parameter specifics. It does not elaborate on how the include* parameters interact or affect the output, so it adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 returns fix candidates for a diagnostic by composing code actions, hover, definition, and signature help. It also notes it does not use AST context, which helps differentiate. However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like lsp_code_actions_preview or lsp_hover, as it does not explain when to use this composite tool instead of individual features.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose. Without such guidance, an agent may misuse the tool or overlook more specific siblings.

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