agent-lsp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior well (retrieving type information, documentation, contextual details) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires an active LSP server, what happens if the location is invalid, response format, or error conditions. The description adds value by explaining what information is retrieved but lacks operational details.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states the action, second elaborates on what information is retrieved, third provides usage guidance. There's minimal redundancy, though the final sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 the complexity (LSP hover operation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks critical details about parameters, response format, and operational requirements. It's complete enough to understand when to use the tool but insufficient for reliable invocation without additional context about the parameters.

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%, and the description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters. It doesn't explain what file_path, language_id, line, column, or position_pattern mean or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 ('get information', 'retrieve') and resources ('location in a file via LSP hover'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hover functionality rather than navigation (go_to_*), completions, or other LSP features. The description explicitly mentions retrieving type information, documentation, and contextual details about symbols.

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: 'whenever you need to get a better idea on what a particular function is doing in that context' and 'particularly useful for understanding variable types, function signatures, and module documentation.' It distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on hover-based information retrieval rather than navigation or other code intelligence features available in sibling tools.

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