agent-lsp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves 'completion suggestions' and is 'helpful for code assistance', but doesn't describe what the return format looks like, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how suggestions are prioritized. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: purpose statement, examples of what's returned, and usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the third sentence could be slightly more concise by removing 'for example when changing libraries' which is somewhat redundant with the preceding clause.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or detailed parameter semantics. For a code completion tool that likely returns complex structured data, this leaves the agent without sufficient context to understand what to expect from the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'specific location in a file' which relates to file_path, line, and column parameters, and 'code completion options based on the current context' which relates to language_id. However, it doesn't explain what language_id values are valid, what coordinate systems line/column use, or file path requirements. With 4 parameters at 0% coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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: 'Get completion suggestions at a specific location in a file' with specific examples like 'variable names, function calls, object properties'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on code completion rather than navigation, diagnostics, or editing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_signature_help' or 'get_inlay_hints'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this when determining which functions you have available in a given package, for example when changing libraries.' It gives a concrete example scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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