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 'file paths and positions of all concrete implementations,' which helps understand the output. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or LSP-specific constraints like server capabilities, leaving room for improvement in behavioral 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 purpose and mechanism, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded 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 of an LSP-based navigation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the tool's purpose and usage well but fails to address parameter meanings or detailed behavioral aspects like error cases, which are crucial for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain any of the 4 parameters (file_path, language_id, line, column), such as what they represent or how they should be formatted. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('Find all implementations'), the resource ('interface or abstract method'), and the mechanism ('via LSP'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like go_to_definition or go_to_declaration by specifying it navigates from abstract to concrete implementations, not just definitions or declarations.

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 on when to use this tool: 'to navigate from an interface declaration or abstract method to the concrete classes that implement it.' It implies usage for code navigation in object-oriented contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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