Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lsp_goto_definitionA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the strict 0-indexing requirement, the return format ('file:line:column' or 'Definition not found'), and an example. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-organized with headers, a critical warning, examples, and a return type. It is longer than minimal but justified by the tricky 0-indexing nuance. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated indexing formulas), but the structure and front-loaded purpose keep it effective.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With annotations covering safety and an output schema presumably present, the description thoroughly covers purpose, parameters, return value, and a detailed example. It even explains edge-case conversion. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Despite the schema having descriptive parameter entries, the context indicates 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explicitly stating the 0-indexing requirement, providing conversion formulas, and offering a concrete example with file_path. It clearly explains how to interpret and provide each parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description starts with a clear and specific verb+resource phrase: 'Jump to symbol definition location.' This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like lsp_hover (show info) and lsp_find_references (find usages). The purpose is unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description clearly implies the use case (navigate to a symbol's definition) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

• lsp_find_referencesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes well beyond annotations by emphasizing the strict 0-indexing requirement, providing a conversion formula, and detailing the exact return format with examples. This is critical behavioral information not covered by the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (CRITICAL, WRONG, CORRECT, Example), but it is somewhat lengthy and repeats examples also found in the nested schema. It remains front-loaded with the primary purpose and key constraint.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description is comprehensive for this tool: it covers input requirements, output format, and provides a worked example. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, this description provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description explains each parameter (line, character, file_path) with concrete examples and the conversion formula from editor to LSP indexing. This adds significant meaning beyond the minimal top-level schema description, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with 'Find all usages/references of symbol at position,' which clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lsp_goto_definition and lsp_hover by its focus on references.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage (finding references) but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like lsp_goto_definition or lsp_hover, nor does it state when not to use it. Thus, the usage is clear from context but lacks explicit guidance.

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

• lsp_hoverA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it emphasizes the critical 0-indexing requirement, shows the exact return format ('(parameter) name: string' or 'No info available'), and explains the formula for converting editor values. The annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description enriches rather than repeats them. No contradictions found.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with a critical warning at the top, clear do/don't examples, and a character indexing diagram. It is somewhat repetitive—the 0-indexing rule is repeated across the warning, character counting section, and schema—but the repetition reinforces a crucial point. It earns a 4 because while not maximally concise, it prioritizes the most important information and remains scannable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description is highly complete: it covers the tool's purpose, input parameters with exhaustive indexing guidance, return value format, and a concrete usage example. The output schema is provided, so return value details do not need to be over-explained. Given the potential for off-by-one errors, this description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description goes far beyond the schema by providing detailed 0-indexing examples, a character-counting illustration, and the conversion formula (lsp_value = editor_value - 1). This adds substantial meaning to the 'line' and 'character' parameters beyond what the schema's descriptions offer. It also clarifies the file_path parameter as relative to the project root. The abundant examples make the parameter usage crystal clear.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get type information and documentation for symbol at position.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lsp_goto_definition (jump to definition) and lsp_find_references (find references). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for use by explaining how to convert editor 1-based positions to 0-based values and includes a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the purpose and critical indexing instructions implicitly guide usage. No exclusion criteria are mentioned, so it scores a 4 rather than a 5.

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