agent-lsp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the tool can write changes to disk and notify LSP servers (with apply=true) or return a diff patch (with apply=false), and it has a safety prerequisite (evaluation). However, it doesn't cover potential side effects like error handling or performance implications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter behavior and usage guidelines in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's dual behavior based on 'apply', safety context, and usage timing. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of the diff patch) and doesn't explain the 'target' parameter, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the 'apply' parameter (true writes changes, false returns diff) and implies 'session_id' is for identifying the session, though 'target' remains undocumented. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema but doesn't fully cover all parameters.

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 verb ('commit') and resource ('simulation session'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'evaluate_session' by specifying it's used after evaluation confirms safety. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other session-related tools like 'discard_session' or 'destroy_session' beyond the commit action.

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 guidance: 'Use after evaluate_session confirms the changes are safe.' This clearly states when to use this tool (post-evaluation) and references a specific alternative tool ('evaluate_session') for validation, though it doesn't mention other session tools like 'discard_session'.

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