agent-lsp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'return'), has a prerequisite ('requires start_lsp to have been called first'), and explains the practical benefit ('saves round trips'). It doesn't detail error handling or response format, but covers essential operational context.

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 states the tool's purpose and benefit, the second adds a critical prerequisite. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key details.

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 tool's moderate complexity (capability discovery with prerequisites), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, why to use it, and prerequisites, but doesn't specify the return format (e.g., map structure) or error conditions, leaving minor gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on tool behavior rather than parameters, earning a baseline 4 since it adds value without redundant parameter explanations.

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 ('return', 'classify') and resources ('language server's capability map', 'agent-lsp tools'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on server capability discovery rather than direct code operations like 'get_completions' or 'format_document'.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool ('to determine which tools will return results before calling them'), when not to use it (requires 'start_lsp to have been called first'), and the benefit ('saves round trips'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by addressing server feature support rather than performing LSP operations directly.

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