hover

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating 'A few plaintext lines, no walls of docs,' which describes the output format. With no annotations provided, this is helpful but could be more detailed (e.g., whether the tool mutates state or requires special permissions). It sufficiently sets expectations for a read-only inspection tool.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage guidance and behavioral notes, efficiently packing information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, 5 parameters with 3 required), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and output characteristics. It could mention the return format more explicitly, but it is mostly complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that positions are 0-based and emphasizing the 'language-server hover' context. Schema coverage is 60% (path, line, character described; projectPath and backend not), so baseline is 3. The description adds value for the required parameters, earning a 4.

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 provides 'type/signature info' for a symbol at a 0-based position, likening it to a language-server hover. This specifies the verb (get info) and resource (symbol), and the mention of 'language-server hover' distinguishes it from sibling tools like goto_definition or find_references.

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 to check a type/overload without opening the file,' giving a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives among the sibling tools, though the sibling names imply other options.

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