lsp_raw_request

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it's disabled by default and dangerous methods are always blocked—useful safety behavior. However, does not mention authorization needs, side effects, or return behavior (no output schema). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence immediately states action; second provides crucial usage constraint. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. Lacks any description of return value format, error behavior, or invocation constraints beyond enabling. For a raw request tool that could be complex, this is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of parameters. Description text adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (method name, params object, language server). Baseline 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?

Description starts with a clear verb+resource: "Send a raw LSP request to a language server." It distinguishes from sibling tools (which are for specific LSP methods like hover, definition) by indicating this sends any raw request. Also mentions disabled state and dangerous methods blocked.

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?

Describes when to use (sending raw LSP requests) and, crucially, the enabling requirement (via env var or update_runtime_config). Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the unique nature of a raw request implies exclusivity.

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