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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (scanning, checking PATH, returning detection results) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, error handling, or what happens if no languages/servers are found. It provides basic operational context but lacks depth.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains the tool's operations and outputs, the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 provides adequate context for understanding the tool's purpose and usage. However, for a tool that performs system scanning and returns complex structured data (languages, servers, configs), more detail about the return format, error conditions, or limitations would be helpful. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks depth for optimal agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description doesn't explicitly mention the 'workspace_dir' parameter. However, it implies the parameter through context ('Scan a workspace directory'), and since there's only one parameter, the agent can reasonably infer its purpose. The description compensates well for the schema gap by explaining what the tool does with the workspace directory.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('scan', 'check') and resources ('workspace directory', 'PATH', 'LSP server binaries'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on language detection and server configuration setup rather than code analysis or editing operations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to set up agent-lsp for a new project or verify your configuration.' This provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus other tools that perform different functions like code editing or analysis.

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