lsp_inspect_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns multiple pieces of information but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the document must be open. For a mutation-free tool, more context about read-only nature and server requirements would improve transparency.

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 immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no extraneous words. Every part is essential.

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?

While the description lists the returned items, it lacks details on output structure, error handling, or performance considerations. With no output schema, more context about the format of the return value would aid the agent. However, for a 3-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate.

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 all properties described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, which already clearly explains filePath, position (with line and character), and maxReferences. 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 verb 'Return' and specifies the exact resources: hover, definitions, references, enclosing symbols, and risk hints for a symbol at a position. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like lsp_hover, lsp_definition, and lsp_references which provide single pieces of information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this combined tool versus its more specific sibling tools. It does not mention scenarios where using the individual tools might be preferable, nor does it state any prerequisites or limitations.

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