agent-lsp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by stating it returns 'available overloads and highlights the active parameter,' which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations (e.g., LSP server availability, error handling, or response format details), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specific usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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-based tool with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on parameters, error conditions, or return format (beyond mentioning 'overloads' and 'active parameter'). For a tool with no structured metadata, it should provide more behavioral context.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'specific location in a file' which loosely relates to file_path, line, and column, but doesn't explain what language_id is for or provide any format details (e.g., line/column indexing, file path requirements). It adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Get function signature help'), resource ('at a specific location in a file via LSP'), and scope ('Returns available overloads and highlights the active parameter'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_completions or get_symbol_documentation by focusing on signature help within function calls.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when the cursor is inside a function call's argument list to understand what parameters the function expects.' This provides clear context for invocation and differentiates it from alternatives like get_completions (for general code suggestions) or get_references (for finding symbol usage).

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