detect_lsp_servers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it scans and checks PATH, implying no destructive actions, but does not explicitly state permissions or side effects. Adequate for a detection tool.

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?

Three sentences: action, outputs, usage. No fluff, front-loaded with key verbs, well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

With no output schema, description compensates by listing return fields (languages, servers, suggested_config). Covers use case and core functionality, though missing details like how scanning works or error conditions.

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%, but description implies 'workspace_dir' is the directory to scan. No format or constraints given beyond that. Barely sufficient for understanding the parameter's role.

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 it scans a workspace directory for source languages and checks PATH for LSP server binaries, listing specific outputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform individual LSP 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 says 'Use this to set up agent-lsp for a new project or verify your configuration', providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is sufficiently focused.

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