add_workspace_folder

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses the effect (adding a directory, enabling cross-repo features), the prerequisite, and notes that language servers with multi-root support will re-index. It does not describe error cases or atomicity, but for this simple operation it is sufficient.

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 the main purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage example, prerequisite, and server compatibility. No redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage scenario, prerequisite, and compatibility. It could mention error handling or that the path must be a valid directory, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'path' with no description, and the tool description does not elaborate on the expected format (e.g., absolute vs relative path, directory existence). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 action ('Add a directory to the LSP workspace') and the benefit (enabling cross-repo references, definitions, diagnostics). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'list_workspace_folders' and 'remove_workspace_folder'.

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 provides explicit usage context ('when working across a library and its consumers') and a concrete example. It also states the prerequisite ('Requires start_lsp to have been called first'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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