detect_lsp_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scans the workspace directory, checks PATH for binaries, and returns a structured result. It does not mention side effects (likely none) or edge cases like missing directories, but for a read-only scan tool this is adequate.

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, both substantive. The first sentence packs the core functionality and return values; the second provides a clear usage tip. 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?

No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return value (languages, servers, suggested_config). It does not cover error handling or what happens if the workspace_dir is invalid, but for a setup tool the description covers the typical use case well.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not add any details about the single parameter 'workspace_dir' beyond its name. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description could clarify expected format (e.g., absolute path) or constraints. This adds no value beyond the schema definition.

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?

Description clearly states it scans a workspace directory for source languages and checks PATH for LSP server binaries. It specifies the return value: detected languages, installed servers, and a suggested_config. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'restart_lsp_server' or 'get_server_capabilities'.

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.' It provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative siblings directly.

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