lsp_prepare_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While it states the output (range and placeholder), it does not disclose the behavior when the symbol cannot be renamed (e.g., whether it returns null, throws an error, or returns an empty result). Side effects or required permissions are not mentioned.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any extraneous words or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it checks and what it returns. It does not explain error scenarios or the full return structure, but for a read-oriented check tool, this is reasonably complete. The schema handles parameter details, and the expected output is stated.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (filePath and position). The description adds no additional meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline expectation for a 100% schema coverage scenario.

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's purpose: checking rename viability at a given position and returning the range and placeholder if renaming is possible. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('rename viability'), which distinguishes it from siblings like lsp_rename_preview that likely handle the actual rename rather than the preparation.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the symbol must be valid), when not to use it, or what to do after. Sibling tools like lsp_rename_preview or other check tools are not referenced.

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