get_quick_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the action is a read-only 'get' and describes the output conceptually, but does not mention any limitations, prerequisites (e.g., projectPath for cross-file resolution), or whether it reads from disk or uses the provided fileContent. Minimal but not misleading.

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 a single 8-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. No wasted words, though additional context could be added without harming structure.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the return value and the effect of optional projectPath. It only states 'type and documentation' without format or behavioral details, making it adequate for a simple case but incomplete for the full feature set.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics; the schema already explains line/offset/filePath/fileContent/projectPath. The description's 'at the cursor' loosely ties to line/offset but adds no new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the target resource as 'type and documentation at the cursor', clearly differentiating from siblings like get_definition (which navigates) and get_signature_help (which shows call signatures). The '(hover)' parenthetical further narrows the intent.

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 you want hover-style info) but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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