lsp_supertypes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It adds context about what the tool returns (parent classes, interfaces, etc.) and the LSP mapping, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires specific server capabilities, or has rate limits.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and mapping. Minor improvement could be made to combine information, but it's well-structured.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the source of the itemId and the types of hierarchy relationships covered. The mapping to LSP method adds completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It reiterates that 'itemId' comes from 'lsp_prepare_type_hierarchy', which is already in the schema description. The 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?

The description clearly states that the tool finds parent classes, implemented interfaces, extended interfaces, parent traits, or supertypes, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'lsp_subtypes' by focusing on supertypes.

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 by mentioning the prerequisite 'itemId from lsp_prepare_type_hierarchy', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lsp_subtypes' or other hierarchy tools. No when-not guidance is provided.

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