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 core action (restarting a process) and optional parameter use, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., temporary disruption), error conditions, or response format. It provides basic context but misses deeper behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter explanation in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (process restart with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return values. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'root_dir', but the description compensates by explaining its purpose ('to restart with a different workspace root') and optional nature. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format 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 ('Restart the LSP server process') and resource ('LSP server'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'start_lsp' (initial startup) and 'detect_lsp_servers' (discovery). It precisely defines 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('if the LSP server becomes unresponsive or after making significant changes to the project structure') and provides a clear alternative context ('Optionally provide a new root_dir to restart with a different workspace root'), giving strong guidance on usage scenarios.

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