get_document_highlights

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

Discloses key behavior: file-scoped, instant, no workspace search, and returns ranges and kinds. With no annotations, this covers the main behavioral traits, though it does not mention error conditions or LSP server dependency.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, return format, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words, all sentences add value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, return values, and when to use. It lacks detailed parameter descriptions and error handling, but is otherwise sufficiently informative for an 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain individual parameters (file_path, language_id, line, column). The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning to them.

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 finds all occurrences of a symbol at a position within the same file via LSP, specifies return kinds (1=Text, 2=Read, 3=Write), and distinguishes from get_references.

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?

Explicitly says it is file-scoped and instant, does not trigger workspace-wide reference search, and advises to use it for local usages without the overhead of get_references.

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