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 key behavioral consequence ('The language server will stop indexing that folder'), which is valuable beyond just stating 'remove'. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the action, resource, and primary consequence. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The description is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and consequence but lacks important context about what 'remove' entails (permanent deletion? temporary exclusion?), error handling, or return values. The behavioral disclosure is minimal though adequate for basic understanding.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it doesn't explicitly mention the 'path' parameter, the phrase 'Remove a directory' strongly implies what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't specify path format requirements or constraints.

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 ('Remove a directory') and resource ('from the LSP workspace'), with additional behavioral context ('The language server will stop indexing that folder'). It distinguishes from sibling 'add_workspace_folder' by specifying removal rather than addition.

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 implies usage when needing to stop language server indexing of a folder, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_workspace_folders' to check current folders or mention prerequisites. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to other workspace management tools are provided.

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