lsp_restart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that open documents are reopened automatically, root_dir fallback behavior, and langserver_path override behavior. It does not mention potential side effects like lost server state or in-flight requests, but it covers the main state-changing behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by use cases, behavioral effects, and parameter details. Every sentence adds useful information without padding or repetition.

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 purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and post-restart behavior, and an output schema exists so return details are unnecessary. It is slightly missing guidance on edge cases such as whether a server must already be initialized, but overall it gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: root_dir's reuse/inference fallback and langserver_path's override of environment variables and project config. This adds meaningful semantics far beyond the bare parameter names in 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 opening sentence explicitly states the action: 'Restart the scheme-langserver connection and reopen tracked documents.' This goes beyond a tautology by naming the specific resource and secondary behavior, and it is clearly different from sibling tools like lsp_initialize or lsp_shutdown.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: pick up configuration changes, switch executables, or recover from a stuck server. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the stated conditions are concrete and actionable.

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