lsp_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add a useful performance caveat about frequent open/close cycles, but it does not disclose whether unsaved edits are affected, whether close is idempotent, or what happens if the file is not currently open. This is a meaningful gap for an operation without annotation support.

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 short and well-structured: a one-line action statement followed by bolded usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the critical behavioral caution is placed prominently.

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 close operation with an output schema available, the description covers the main invocation contexts and the primary anti-pattern. It does not mention error behavior or require the file to be open explicitly, but those are minor omissions given the simplicity of the tool.

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%, and the description does not explain file_path format (e.g., URI vs filesystem path, absolute vs relative). The single parameter is nevertheless made reasonably clear by its name and title plus the tool's 'file' reference, so semantics are inferable but not enriched beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Close a file') and the resource ('the language server'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like lsp_open, lsp_change, and lsp_shutdown because close is a distinct operation in the same lifecycle.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('completely done with a file or at session end') and an explicit when-not-to-use instruction ('Do NOT close files just because you paused editing'). It also explains the rationale (wasted server resources), making the routing decision easy for an agent.

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