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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: changes are in-memory only, session captures baseline diagnostics on first edit, tracks versions for subsequent edits, and returns a new version number. It also clarifies indexing conventions (1-indexed positions). However, it lacks details on error conditions or performance implications.

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 important behavioral details and indexing conventions in just four sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information 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 complexity of a 7-parameter edit tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, behavioral context, and key parameter semantics. However, it could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., session must exist) or error cases to be fully comprehensive.

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 7 parameters, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of line/column positions (1-indexed, matching editor line numbers) and implying the purpose of 'new_text' and 'session_id'. It does not detail all parameters like 'file_path' or the exact role of start/end positions, but adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Apply a range edit to a file'), resource ('within a simulation session'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'apply_edit' and 'simulate_edit_atomic' by emphasizing the simulation context and in-memory nature of changes.

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 ('within a simulation session', 'Changes are held in-memory only'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'apply_edit' for non-simulation edits.

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