codeCompletionFull

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns both the text to insert and the insertion position, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose details like whether the completion is context-sensitive, how the position is represented, or any rate-limit/performance traits.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the sibling distinction is included. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the second sentence to explain parameters instead of only naming the sibling.

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 tool with 5 required parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the meaning of sourceUrl or patternKey, nor what the completion response structure looks like. The sibling distinction helps, but an agent would still be guessing about critical inputs.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the 5 required parameters. The description only mentions 'cursor position in a source' and 'text to insert', which maps to line/column/source but leaves sourceUrl and patternKey unexplained. With zero schema descriptions and no parameter details in the description, an agent cannot confidently determine what patternKey or sourceUrl mean.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it provides completion proposals with the text to insert and the position to insert it at, for a cursor position in a source. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling codeCompletion by calling itself 'the fuller form of codeCompletion', which helps an agent differentiate the two.

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 context (cursor position in a source) and names the sibling codeCompletion as the alternative, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus codeCompletion or codeCompletionElement. The phrase 'fuller form' gives some guidance but leaves the selection criteria to inference.

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