get_info_on_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite 'Requires the file to be opened first' and implies a read-only operation via 'get information' and 'LSP hover.' It does not explicitly state there are no side effects or describe error behavior, but the key requirement is covered, making it reasonably transparent.

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 somewhat verbose and redundant. Sentences 2 and 3 both mention retrieving type information and documentation, and sentence 4 repeats 'use this' guidance. It could be condensed to two or three clear sentences without losing meaning, so it does not earn full points for conciseness.

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?

For a read-only hover tool with four parameters, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, and a key prerequisite. There is no output schema, so the description gives a general idea of the return content ('detailed type information, documentation...'). While more detail on return format or error handling would improve completeness, it is sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema. It refers to 'a specific location' (line/column) and 'a file,' but these are already implied by the schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Get information on a specific location in a file via LSP hover,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly conveys the tool's function. It also distinguishes this from siblings like get_completions and get_code_actions by focusing on retrieving hover/type information rather than generating completions or actions.

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 clear usage context, stating it is 'particularly useful for understanding variable types, function signatures, and module documentation.' It also says 'Use this whenever you need to get a better idea on what a particular function is doing in that context.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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