start_lsp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the ordering dependency and explains that file paths are resolved relative to the root, which is important behavioral context. It does not cover edge cases like double-start or return values, but the provided details are meaningful for a start operation.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: the first states the action, the second explains the prerequisite, and the third clarifies path resolution. Each sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter start tool, the description is fairly complete, covering purpose, prerequisite, and parameter semantics. It lacks details on return behavior or error conditions, but the tool's simplicity and the emphasis on its role as a prerequisite mitigate that gap.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of the parameter, the description adds valuable semantics by explaining what the root directory should contain (config files like tsconfig.json, package.json) and how it is used for path resolution. This goes beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 clearly states the action ('Start the LSP server') and the key input (root directory). It distinguishes itself from the sibling restart_lsp_server by emphasizing 'must be called before using any other LSP functionality', positioning it as the initialization step.

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?

It explicitly provides a strong when-to-use instruction: 'This tool must be called before using any other LSP functionality.' It also gives context on root directory selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though restart_lsp_server is an implicit alternative for already-running scenarios.

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