lsp_list_supported_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only (does not start servers) and returns configuration data. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool with no destructive potential.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first describes the return, the second explicitly states what it does not do. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a safe read-only nature, the description is complete. It conveys what is returned and a key behavioral trait. With 58 siblings, it effectively differentiates from tools that start or interact with servers.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none.

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 configured languages with details on extensions, commands, and binary availability, and explicitly says it does not start language servers. This verb+resource+scope makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like lsp_restart_server or lsp_open_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 implies safe usage by noting it does not start servers, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lsp_list_open_documents or lsp_workspace_symbols. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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