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 describes what the tool does (finds references via LSP) and what it returns (file path and line/column for each reference), but lacks details on performance characteristics, error handling, or limitations (e.g., workspace scope, LSP server requirements). It adds some context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by use cases and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains the tool's purpose and return format well, but lacks parameter guidance and detailed behavioral context. For a tool with rich input requirements and no structured support, it should provide more comprehensive information to be fully 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or provide guidance on their usage, leaving all parameters (file_path, language_id, line, column, include_declaration, position_pattern) unexplained. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Find all references to a symbol at a specific location in a file via LSP') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns every location where the symbol is used. It explicitly mentions use cases like determining dead symbols, understanding call sites, and tracing data flow, which differentiates it from similar tools like get_document_symbols or get_workspace_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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to determine if a symbol is dead', 'to understand call sites before refactoring', 'to trace data flow'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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