super_lsp_status

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 describes what the tool does (check installation status and provide instructions) and mentions the LSP's purpose (enabling code completions and documentation lookup). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or response format details that would be helpful for an agent.

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 concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, while the second provides valuable context about why the LSP matters. There's no wasted language or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and why. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., installation status indicators, instruction format) or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to use it effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check if installed', 'get installation instructions') and resources ('SuperDB LSP'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on LSP installation status rather than query execution, documentation lookup, or database 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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool: when needing to verify LSP installation status or obtain installation instructions. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for LSP setup rather than querying or documentation access.

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