LSP document symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the return shape ('ranges and kinds') but omits whether this is a read-only operation, whether it touches disk or an LSP server, error behavior for missing/invalid paths, and any performance or caching characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the limited information it conveys, though its brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than being an intentional structural choice.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin for correct invocation. It does not explain how the path parameter is used, how results relate to the LSP protocol, or how to choose this tool over the many symbol-related siblings.

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?

There is one required parameter ('path') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the path parameter at all or explain what it should point to (file? workspace? language-specific path?). The tool name implies a document, but the description fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 gives a specific operation: return tree-sitter symbols converted to LSP DocumentSymbol ranges and kinds. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like lsp_workspace_symbols, list_symbols, or search_symbols, nor does it state that it operates on a single document/file. An agent can infer the general purpose but not exactly when this tool is the right choice.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and other siblings.

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