get_code_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it gets code actions but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns a list, if there are side effects, or permissions needed. The examples give some idea but overall lacking.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It could benefit from more structure (e.g., bullet points), but it is efficient and to the point.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not cover return values, error handling, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It implies a range is needed but does not detail file_path, language_id, start_line, etc., leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'code actions for a specific range in a file.' It provides examples of code actions (refactorings, quick fixes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_completions or format_range.

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 tells when to use the tool: to obtain available refactorings, quick fixes, and modifications for a selected code range. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the usage context is clear among siblings.

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