complete_code

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates a read operation, and the description 'Show' aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as the fact that completions are returned or that language and sentence are required. With the annotation present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but could be structured to include more detail without losing brevity.

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 complexity of the nested input schema and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, behavior when no completions are found, or any constraints like response size limits. More context would help the agent use the tool 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 input schema has 0% description coverage at the top level, and the description does not explain the nested parameters (language, sentence, responseSizeLimit). The description simply says 'for a specific text input', which vaguely references the 'sentence' parameter but fails to mention the language or optional size limit. Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, the score is low.

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 'Show the code completion for a specific text input' clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It specifies a verb ('Show') and a resource ('code completion'), and adds context ('for a specific text input') that hints at the input parameter. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'check_syntax' or 'update_code_to_pep8', it could be more precise about what 'code completion' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as 'check_syntax' or 'create_compile'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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