get_completions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only describes functional behavior and omits any mention of side effects, permissions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a read operation that should ideally be flagged as safe.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. The second sentence adds some redundancy but no wasted words. It could be tighter but is still efficient.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on return values, pagination, or completion structure. With an output schema or richer annotations, this would be insufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific location' (linking to line/column) but does not explain file_path or language_id. Parameters are not elaborated beyond their names and types, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 resource ('completion suggestions at a specific location in a file'). It explains what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like get_signature_help by specifying location-based code completion.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (code assistance, auto-completion, determining available functions) and gives a concrete example (changing libraries). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is still effective.

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