get_completions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. However, it only mentions that completions are context-based and does not explain read-only nature, error handling, or prerequisites like having an open document. The description lacks depth on behavior.

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 with four sentences, starting with the core purpose and expanding with examples. No irrelevant information is present, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, language support, or edge cases, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters like file_path, line, column, and language_id are not explained. The description only refers to location but does not specify formats, constraints, or which parameter is optional (language_id). This is insufficient for correct 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 tool retrieves completion suggestions at a specific location, listing examples like variable names and function calls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_code_actions or get_info_on_location, which serve different purposes.

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 explains when to use the tool: for code completion options and determining available functions when changing libraries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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