get_intents_for_lines

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits such as warning about overlaps and returning details. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only or describe other behavioral aspects like authentication needs or 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 concise at 5 sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it contains some redundancy (e.g., overlap warnings repeated) and could be more 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?

No output schema, but description explains the tool checks conflicts and returns overlap details. It does not cover behaviors like empty results, permissions, or error scenarios, leaving some gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get intents covering a specific line range', which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_intents_for_file' by focusing on a line range, though not explicitly naming the alternative.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this before modifying specific lines to check for conflicts', providing clear context and recommended usage. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools explicitly.

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