lsp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: 'Show status' strongly implies a non-destructive read and the field list tells the agent what information is surfaced. However, it doesn't state whether the call refreshes/starts servers, whether it is cheap or slow, or what happens when no servers are running.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the action and resource first and then lists the payload contents. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and the zero-parameter schema needs no clarification. The only real omission is usage context (when to check status, e.g. after diagnostics failures), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated fields loosely preview the response shape, which is a small bonus but not parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show status') plus a precise resource ('all Language Server processes') and enumerates the reported fields (workspace root, PIDs, restart counts, error summaries). It is clearly distinct from the code-navigation siblings, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, no mention of troubleshooting/health-check scenarios, and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the enumerated fields.

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