LSP signature help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes the zero-based LSP position convention, which is useful, but says nothing about required LSP server state, what happens when the cursor is not inside a call (likely empty result), or whether this is a pure read with no side effects.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. Missing: path vs paths semantics, LSP server prerequisites, and expected behavior when no call is at the position.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that the position is zero-based (helping line/character) and never explains the crucial ambiguity between the required 'path' and the optional 'paths' array, leaving a real risk of incorrect invocation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return signature help') and scopes it to 'the active call', which is more precise than a generic hover. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar siblings lsp_hover and lsp_completion, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. a running LSP server), and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set (lsp_hover, lsp_completion, lsp_definition). The phrase 'active call' hints at context but does not tell the agent when this beats lsp_hover.

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