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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it performs evaluation by comparison, returns specific metrics (errors introduced/resolved, net delta, confidence), and explains confidence levels (high for file scope, eventual for workspace). However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 in two sentences: the first explains the core functionality and return values, the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well in explaining what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. However, it lacks details about parameters and doesn't fully describe the return format structure (e.g., what 'confidence' values mean). Given the complexity of evaluation operations, some additional context about error conditions or limitations would be helpful.

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 for 3 parameters, the description doesn't provide any information about the parameters (session_id, scope, timeout_ms). It doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the evaluation. The baseline is 3 since the schema provides structure but no descriptions.

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 ('evaluate', 'compare') and resources ('simulation session', 'current diagnostics against baselines'), distinguishing it from siblings like simulate_edit or commit_session. It explicitly identifies what the tool does rather than just restating the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Use after simulate_edit to assess impact before committing'), including a clear prerequisite (simulate_edit) and purpose (assessment before committing). This distinguishes it from alternatives like commit_session or get_change_impact.

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