lsp_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does well by explaining what is returned (scope-aware identifiers) and by disclosing a meaningful limitation: confidence is MEDIUM and macro-generated identifiers may be missed. This goes beyond the basic action and gives the agent realistic expectations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line action, a clarifying analogy, the behavior, and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information appears first. There is no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the main behavior, scope-awareness, and a confidence caveat, and an output schema exists for return values. The notable gap is the missing coordinate-system context for line and character parameters, which is important for correctly invoking an LSP completion request. Overall it is usable but not fully complete.

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, but it does not explain line and character semantics. It only says 'at the cursor position,' leaving ambiguous whether coordinates are zero-based, whether UTF-16 code units are used, or how malformed positions should fail. Self-explanatory parameter names help slightly, but the LSP-specific conventions are undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Trigger auto-completion at the cursor position' and clarifies the result with 'Returns identifiers available in the current scope.' It distinguishes itself from text-search and hover tools by noting local bindings that would not appear in a simple text search. This is clearly a completion tool, not a lookup or navigation tool.

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 analogy 'Like pressing Ctrl+Space in an IDE' gives clear context for when to invoke the tool: when the user wants code completion at a specific location. The mention of local bindings also implicitly steers agents away from naive text search. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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