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 mentions that the tool lists 'currently active' folders and relates to 'language server indexing', which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, or what the output format looks like (especially with no output schema).

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by clarifying the action and usage context without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage context well, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and return values, which could be important for an agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion or gaps.

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 ('List all currently active workspace folders') and resource ('workspace folders'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_workspace_folder' and 'remove_workspace_folder'. It explains what the tool does without being tautological.

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 this tool ('to see which roots the language server is indexing'), which implies it's for monitoring or discovery purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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