agent-lsp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of using 'workspace symbol search' and working without file/line info, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like search scope, performance implications, or what happens if multiple matches exist. For a navigation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

Perfectly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, the second explains the mechanism, and the third provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the primary use case well but leaves 'workspace_root' and 'language' parameters completely undocumented. For a navigation tool in a complex LSP context, more parameter guidance would be helpful despite the good purpose and usage clarity.

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. It only explains 'symbol_path' with examples ('LSPClient.GetReferences', 'http.Handler') but doesn't mention 'workspace_root' or 'language' parameters at all. With 3 parameters total and only 1 partially documented, the description fails to adequately explain parameter meanings beyond what little the schema provides.

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 ('Navigate to a symbol definition') and resources ('symbol definition by dot-notation name'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'go_to_definition' by specifying it works 'without needing file_path or line/column' and uses 'workspace symbol search'.

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: 'Useful when you know the symbol name but not its location.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'go_to_definition' that might require file paths. The description effectively differentiates the use case from sibling tools.

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