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 effect (changing log verbosity) and consequences ('may generate large amounts of output'), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether the change persists across server restarts, what permissions are required, or if there are rate limits.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The three-sentence structure efficiently covers purpose, parameter semantics, and practical considerations.

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 single-parameter configuration tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides strong coverage of purpose, parameter meaning, and usage context. The main gap is the lack of information about persistence of changes or permission requirements, which would be helpful for a server configuration 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description provides excellent compensation by fully explaining the 'level' parameter's semantics. It lists all available values in order of verbosity and explains their practical implications, adding substantial meaning beyond what the bare 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 specific action ('Set the server logging level') and resource ('LSP MCP server'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on code analysis, editing, or workspace management rather than server configuration. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying what aspect of logging is controlled.

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 the tool ('to control the verbosity of logs' and 'help troubleshoot issues'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It implies usage for debugging purposes without naming specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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