get_code_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses the file-open prerequisite but fails to state whether the operation is read-only or whether it applies changes, nor does it describe the return format. This leaves ambiguity about the tool's 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 three sentences and stays focused. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second adds illustrative examples, and the third states a key prerequisite. It is concise without being overly terse.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'obtain available refactorings' but does not describe the response structure or possible error conditions. The prerequisite helps, but completeness is only moderate for a tool with six required parameters and no output schema.

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 all six parameters are individually documented in the schema. The description adds only the concept of a 'specific range', which aligns with the start/end line/column parameters, but provides no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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: 'Get code actions for a specific range in a file.' It provides a specific verb-resource pair and concrete examples (refactorings, quick fixes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_completions.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool to obtain available refactorings, quick fixes, and other code modifications' and warns that the file must be opened first. It does not list exclusion criteria or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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