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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns the file path and position where the symbol is defined', which gives some output information, but lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or any constraints (e.g., requires an active LSP server, may fail if symbol not found). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 first sentence stating the core action and return value, followed by a second sentence explaining usefulness. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy 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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on parameters, error conditions, and behavioral traits. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully inform the agent, but it falls short, especially in parameter semantics and transparency.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or provide semantic context beyond the general purpose. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters like 'language_id' and 'position_pattern' unexplained, which is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 ('Jump to the definition', 'Returns the file path and position') and resources ('symbol', 'via LSP'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning what it returns and providing examples of use cases ('type declarations, function implementations, or variable assignments'), making it easy to differentiate from similar tools like go_to_declaration or go_to_implementation.

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 the tool ('Useful for navigating to type declarations, function implementations, or variable assignments across the codebase'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., go_to_declaration or go_to_implementation), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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