lsp_resolve_code_action

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool applies the action or merely previews edits, nor does it specify side effects or permission needs. 'Resolve' is ambiguous—could mean finalize or just retrieve. Insufficient transparency for safe invocation.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Concise but could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity. Still earns a high score for efficiency.

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 description omits crucial details: what a 'validated edit preview' looks like, whether edits are applied, error behavior, and relationship to sibling tools like lsp_workspace_edit_preview. Inadequate for an agent to fully understand usage and outcomes.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names and defaults: 'actionId' and 'includeDiff' are already described in schema. No elaboration on how parameters affect the output.

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 uses specific verb 'resolve' and resource 'lazy code action from cache,' clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling like lsp_code_actions_preview by focusing on resolving a cached action vs previewing. The output 'validated edit preview' further clarifies the return.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., lsp_code_actions_preview). No mention of prerequisites like first obtaining a cached action. The description assumes the agent knows the workflow, leaving usage ambiguous.

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