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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions return format but does not disclose that it is read-only or potential side effects. Basic transparency is present.

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?

Concise, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, no extraneous information, fits the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, description covers purpose, parameters, and return but lacks completeness about prerequisites (e.g., project analysis), behavior on not found, or limitations. Output schema exists but minimal.

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?

Description explains each parameter in detail (project_path, file_path, line as 0-indexed, column), adding significant value beyond the schema which only has titles and 0% description coverage.

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 'Find all references to a symbol at a specific position', which is a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like go_to_definition and search_symbols.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like go_to_definition or search_symbols. The description merely lists parameters without usage context.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (JSON string) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, whether it might be expensive, or if authentication is needed. For a simple get operation, this is minimally acceptable but could be improved by noting safety and lack of side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for the main function, plus structured Args/Returns. Every word serves a purpose. No redundancy or filler. Ideal for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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's simplicity (single required parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description provides the core information. However, lack of usage context and no mention of what 'capabilities' includes (e.g., features, options) leaves room for improvement. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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?

The description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'project_path' by specifying it is an absolute path to the Dart project root. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this compensates well. However, additional details about path format (e.g., required trailing slash) would elevate it to a 5.

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 tool's purpose: to get LSP server capabilities for a project. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('LSP server capabilities'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., find_references, get_diagnostics) which focus on specific LSP features rather than overall capabilities.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for calling it. For example, it could mention that this tool is useful for discovering available server features before using other LSP tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature (get), but does not detail side effects, permissions, or error handling. Adequate for a read operation.

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?

Description is structured with Args/Returns sections and is front-loaded. A bit verbose but no wasted sentences. Could be more concise.

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?

With output schema present, return value explanation is sufficient. Covers core usage for 4 parameters and required project_path. Missing edge cases but adequate for a diagnostic 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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained with context (absolute path, optional file, severity levels, filter default). Adds significant meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Get Dart diagnostics for a project or specific file', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_references and get_hover by focusing on diagnostics.

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?

Description implies use when diagnostics are needed but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention alternatives among siblings. Provides some context with optional parameters but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It declares the tool returns a hierarchical list or error, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects. The behavior is implicitly safe but not confirmed.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence for purpose followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No wasted words; every sentence is necessary.

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 presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description sufficiently summarizes the return value as 'Hierarchical list of symbols or error message'. For a tool with moderate complexity and clear parameters, this is nearly 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 add meaning. It clearly describes both parameters as 'Absolute path to Dart project root' and 'Absolute path to Dart file', which adds valuable context beyond the schema's type and title. However, it could specify that the project path should point to the root containing pubspec.yaml.

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 tool retrieves all symbols (classes, functions, variables) from a Dart file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_references' and 'go_to_definition' by focusing on listing all symbols in a given file.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or limitations, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns hover content or an error, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or if any authentication or server state is required. The return type is mentioned but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 structured with clear sections (Args/Returns) and is reasonably concise. Every sentence adds value, though the argument list could be considered redundant given the schema, but given the lack of schema descriptions, it is justified.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters, and an output schema exists to define the return structure. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the Dart project must be analyzed) and does not explain behavior for edge cases like missing symbols.

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 adds brief but meaningful explanations for all four parameters (e.g., 'Absolute path to Dart project root,' '0-indexed line number'), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the purpose of each parameter.

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 tool retrieves hover information (documentation, type) for a symbol, using a specific verb-resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'go_to_definition' or 'find_references'.

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 implies when to use it (when hover info is needed) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'go_to_definition'. No 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns definition location(s) or an error message, and details input parameters. It's transparent for a simple read operation, though it doesn't mention side effects or permissions, which are expected to be minimal.

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 extremely concise: a purpose statement, a parameter list with clear explanations, and a return description. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 lacks detail about the output structure beyond 'Definition location(s) or error message'. The presence of an output schema (per context signals) could mitigate this, but the description doesn't leverage it. For a basic navigation tool, this may suffice, but it's 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. It explains each parameter clearly: project_path is absolute path to Dart project root, file_path is absolute path to Dart file, line is 0-indexed, column is 0-indexed. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.

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 'Go to definition of symbol at position' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_references' and 'get_hover', which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage when needing to find a symbol's definition, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions are mentioned, so it's adequate but not strong.

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

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

No annotations are provided; description mentions reindexing as a mutation but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or required permissions.

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?

Concise three-line description with clear action, usage condition, and a structured Args/Returns section; every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, the description appropriately summarizes returns. The tool has low complexity, and the description covers necessary context without over-explaining.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds the key detail 'Absolute path to the Dart project root' for the single parameter, significantly aiding understanding.

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 tool re-scans and indexes Dart files, distinguishing it from query-focused sibling tools like find_references and get_diagnostics.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to call (after file changes) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though siblings are clearly different.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns a list of symbols with locations, but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints like case sensitivity or search scope boundaries.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and uses a clear structure with args and returns list.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail the return format. However, it lacks specifics on search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, symbol types included), which is a gap for correct tool invocation. Adequate but not thorough.

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%, yet the description adds critical context for both parameters: project_path is an absolute path, and query is a partial name match. This goes beyond the bare schema types and titles, providing meaningful interpretation.

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 verb 'search' and resource 'symbols across the workspace,' but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_document_symbols which focuses on a single document.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description does not help the agent choose between search_symbols and other tools.

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