lsp_code_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a limitation ('may return -32601 method not found or behave incompletely'), which is a positive behavioral note. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the limitation is clearly separated in the second. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 5 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain parameter semantics, prerequisites (e.g., server initialization), or the expected output. The limitation note is the only extra context, making it insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a range,' which hints at start/end positions but does not explain the individual parameters (file_path, line/character numbers) or coordinate conventions. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful detail 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 operation: 'Get code actions (quick fixes, refactorings) for a range.' This specifies the verb, resource, and scope. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lsp_rename, the name and description are distinct enough for an agent to identify the purpose.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other LSP tools. The only additional note is a limitation about potential -32601 errors, which addresses reliability rather than usage context. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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