agent-lsp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it validates rename feasibility, returns a range and placeholder name or an error message, and returns null if unsupported. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling details beyond the basic return values.

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 three sentences: first states the purpose and return values, second provides usage guidance, third covers edge case behavior. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, usage sequence, return values, and server capability handling. However, it doesn't detail what constitutes a 'valid' rename position or provide examples of error messages, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. While the description doesn't explicitly explain individual parameters, it implies their purpose through context ('at the given position' referring to file_path, line, column). However, it doesn't explain language_id or provide format details. Given the low schema coverage, this provides some but incomplete compensation.

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: 'Validate that a rename is possible at the given position before committing to rename_symbol.' It specifies the verb (validate), resource (rename operation), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'rename_symbol' by explaining this is a pre-check. The description also explains what it returns (range and placeholder name or error message).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this before rename_symbol to avoid attempting invalid renames.' It provides clear guidance on the sequence of operations and distinguishes it from the alternative 'rename_symbol' tool, making it evident this is a preparatory step rather than the actual rename operation.

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