lsp_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the rationale (server needs file contents) and gives a behavioral rule (keep open for session). Yet it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or behavior on repeated opens, leaving some transparency 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a brief rationale and usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place; no redundant content exists.

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 tool is simple, but the description omits prerequisites like calling lsp_initialize first and how it fits into the lifecycle. It does not explain return values, though an output schema exists. It provides session context but misses setup dependencies.

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 does not explain file_path or language_id beyond schema titles. The mention of 'Scheme file' hints at the default language_id, but it does not clarify the parameters' purpose or usage, failing to add value over 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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Open a file in the language server', with an editor tab analogy that makes the action intuitive. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like lsp_close and lsp_change by focusing solely on the opening action.

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 states when to use ('When you start working on a Scheme file') and when not to ('do NOT open and close repeatedly'). However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., lsp_change for edits, lsp_close for cleanup), so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparisons.

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