lsp_signature_help

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool maps to textDocument/signatureHelp (standard LSP), implying idempotent read-only behavior, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations. The description adds value but could be more transparent.

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?

Description is two sentences: first states core purpose, second lists usage contexts. No redundant information, well front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description broadly states return type ('function/method call signature information'), but does not detail the exact format (e.g., parameter labels, active parameter). The mapping to LSP standard provides some implicit completeness, but more specificity would help agents.

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% (both parameters well-described in schema). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond mentioning 'at a position', so it does not increase semantic clarity beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it returns function/method call signature information at a position, maps to a well-known LSP method, and lists use cases (checking wrong arguments, missing parameters, incorrect overloads). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like hover or completion.

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 mentions use cases ('useful for checking wrong arguments...'), providing implicit guidance, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as lsp_hover or lsp_completion. More explicit guidance would improve score.

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