lsp_request_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action (return) and filtering, but fails to disclose whether this operation is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or what the response format is.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and options.

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?

For a simple log retrieval tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core action and filter dimensions. However, it could benefit from clarifying ordering (already in schema) and the read-only nature.

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%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal value by summarizing the filtering options but does not provide new details beyond what is in 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 LSP request log entries and lists specific filtering dimensions (language, method, status, time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lsp_clear_request_log (which clears logs) and other analysis tools.

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 usage for retrieving logs with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use lsp_diagnostics instead). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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