get_hover

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.