codeCompletionElement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds that the tool returns details such as type, documentation, and source, and implies a dependency on a prior codeCompletion response. It does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as failure modes or prerequisites beyond the input parameters.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and then gives the usage context. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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's role as a follow-up detail lookup for codeCompletion is clear, and the annotations cover its read-only safety profile. However, with four required parameters, zero schema-level descriptions, and no output schema, the description should explain parameter roles more fully. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four required parameters: sourceUrl, source, line, and column. 'Where it comes from' vaguely hints at source/sourceUrl, but the coordinates and their relationship to a completion entry are undocumented. This forces the agent to guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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 identifies the tool as providing details for a single code completion proposal: its type, documentation, and origin. It also ties itself to codeCompletion, which helps an agent understand its role in the completion workflow. However, it lacks a strong imperative verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the codeCompletionFull sibling.

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 phrase 'Follows codeCompletion for the entry you want to know more about' gives explicit contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool. It tells the agent this is a follow-up detail lookup after a codeCompletion call. It does not mention when not to use it or compare against similar siblings like codeCompletionFull, but the core usage condition is clear.

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