hover_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'similar to VS Code hover,' which gives a rough idea but does not mention read-only nature, error behavior for invalid positions, or whether tsconfig auto-detection affects results. This is minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function and adds a helpful analogy. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to explain more. It does not describe what the return value looks like, how errors are reported, or any prerequisites (e.g., valid file path). The VS Code hover analogy helps but is insufficient for complete operational understanding.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a general 'source position' concept that relates to line and column, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional parameter-specific details are given.

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 indicates the tool provides quick information at a source position, and the VS Code hover analogy helps convey its purpose. However, it does not explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'get') or the exact kind of info (type, documentation, etc.), so it is clear but not fully specific.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like resolve_type or type_diagnostics. The context is implied by the name and analogy, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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