start_lsp

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It explains that the tool initializes/reinitializes server state, which is a side effect, but doesn't detail error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on repeated calls. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. It could mention return value or error handling, but the tool's role as an initializer makes the description reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description fully compensates. It explains root_dir as workspace root with concrete examples (go.mod, etc.) and language_id as optional for multi-server mode with usage context.

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 it initializes or reinitializes the LSP server with a specific root directory. It also lists dependent tools (get_references, get_info_on_location, get_diagnostics), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other operations.

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 says when to use it: before certain tools when changing projects. Provides guidance on root_dir and language_id, including when to use the latter (mixed-language repos) and the alternative get_server_capabilities if unsure.

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