agent-lsp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool destroys resources and releases them, specifies prerequisite states (after commit/discard), and mentions irreversible terminal states. It doesn't cover error handling or response format, but provides substantial behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and usage timing, second provides critical constraint about terminal states. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter destructive tool.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about when to use, prerequisites, and irreversible effects. It doesn't specify return values or error cases, but given the tool's straightforward nature and clear sibling relationships, it's nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (single parameter 'session_id' with no description), but the description implicitly clarifies that session_id refers to the simulation session to be destroyed, and contextually links it to sessions created by create_simulation_session and managed by commit/discard_session. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Destroy') and resource ('a simulation session'), and distinguishes it from siblings like commit_session and discard_session by specifying it's for cleanup after those operations. It provides a complete purpose statement with scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Call this after commit or discard to clean up') and when not to use ('Sessions in terminal states... cannot be reused'), with clear alternatives (commit_session, discard_session) implied in the workflow context. Provides complete usage guidance.

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