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 returns all matching symbols (not just first match), explains how detail_level affects output (enrichment with hover info), describes pagination behavior for enriched results, and mentions default values for limit and offset. It does not cover error cases or performance implications.

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: the first sentence states core purpose and return format, followed by focused sentences on parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying behavior without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is largely complete for a search tool: it covers purpose, key parameters, and behavioral details like pagination and enrichment. A minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or output structure details, but it's sufficient for agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose: query for search, detail_level for enrichment control (with specific enum-like values 'basic' and 'hover'), and limit/offset for pagination of enriched results, including default values. This adds significant meaning 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for symbols') and resources ('across the entire workspace via LSP'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_document_symbols (which likely searches within a single document) by specifying workspace-wide scope.

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 detail_level options (omit/basic for names/locations only, hover for enriched info) and how to paginate with limit/offset, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like go_to_symbol or get_document_symbols, though the workspace scope is implied.

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