lsp_code_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered; 'without applying them' reinforces this but adds little. The description does not disclose return shape, result limit behavior, or what happens when no actions exist.

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 tight sentence with the key constraint (non-applying, range-scoped, language-server) front-loaded and zero filler.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool with 63% coverage, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain the default limit of 50, the endLine/endCharacter range semantics, or the shape of the returned actions list.

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?

With 63% schema coverage across 8 params, the schema already documents file, line, only, symbol and character. The description only implies a 'source range' but adds no meaning for limit, endLine, endCharacter, or the CodeActionKind filter, so it neither duplicates nor compensates meaningfully.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('language-server code actions/quick fixes/refactors') scoped to a source range, and the qualifier 'without applying them' sharply separates it from any apply/rename/format counterpart among the lsp_* siblings.

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?

'Without applying them' implies the usage context (discovery/preview rather than mutation), but no alternative tool or explicit when-not condition is named, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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