lsp_workspace_edit_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool does not write files, which is a key safety guarantee. However, it does not mention the optional parameters (maxEdits, maxFiles, includeDiff) or return format details beyond 'unified diff', missing some transparency on limits and output structure.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Parse, validate, and preview a raw LSP WorkspaceEdit') and includes a concise caveat about not writing files. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text.

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 complex nested schema and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the core function but omits details about optional parameters, return format beyond 'unified diff', and error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and a rich input schema, a more complete description would be beneficial.

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%, with each parameter already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it only mentions the tool's overall purpose. According to the guidelines, when coverage is high, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 parses, validates, and previews a raw LSP WorkspaceEdit, returning a unified diff without writing to disk. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling preview tools like lsp_format_preview and lsp_rename_preview.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'without writing any files to disk', which implies a preview use case, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. Siblings like lsp_validate_workspace_edit could have different behavior, but the description offers no comparison.

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