nav_type

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the language server's type checker for live hover, and clarifies limitations of map tools. Does not discuss side effects (likely none) or response structure, but is sufficient for a read-only query.

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: first defines core functionality, second differentiates from siblings. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action 'Live hover: resolved type signature and docs'.

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 no output schema and 4 documented parameters, the description explains the tool's authority and data source. It does not specify return format, but for a type-query tool this is acceptable; a minor gap is the lack of verbosity on what 'docs' includes.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides.

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 it provides 'resolved type signature and docs at a position' from the language server's type checker, and distinguishes itself from sibling 'map' tools by noting they only have parse-time signatures.

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?

It implies use when needing type information at a cursor position ('authoritative answer to what type is this?'), contrasting with map tools. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling list and context make it clear.

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