agent-lsp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: it creates and destroys sessions automatically, returns evaluation results, and includes a safety indicator ('net_delta: 0 means the edit is safe to apply'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or specific evaluation metrics.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by usage context and critical details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second specifies use case and prerequisite, the third clarifies indexing, and the fourth explains safety. No wasted words.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, indexing, and safety. However, it doesn't fully explain the evaluation result format or all parameter roles, leaving some context for a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'All line/column positions are 1-indexed' and 'net_delta: 0 means the edit is safe to apply,' which clarifies parameter usage beyond schema types. However, it doesn't detail all 11 parameters (e.g., 'scope', 'timeout_ms'), leaving some gaps.

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 as a 'one-shot atomic operation' that 'create[s] session, apply edit, evaluate, and destroy' and 'returns evaluation result.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'simulate_edit' (which lacks atomic lifecycle management) and 'create_simulation_session' (which only creates without applying edits).

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?

Explicitly states 'Use for quick what-if checks without managing session lifecycle manually' and 'Requires start_lsp to be called first,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and prerequisites. It differentiates from alternatives by emphasizing atomicity versus manual session management tools.

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