get_info_on_location

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states the tool uses LSP hover and returns 'detailed type information, documentation, and contextual details,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not disclose behavior for invalid locations or whether the output is formatted (e.g., markdown).

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 three sentences long, front-loading the primary action and purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more compact without losing clarity. No extraneous information.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, output format (e.g., structured data or plain text), error handling, and any limitations. The agent lacks enough detail to use the tool reliably.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain any of the parameters (file_path, language_id, line, column, position_pattern), leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone. This adds no value beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves detailed type information, documentation, and contextual details for symbols via LSP hover, distinguishing it from sibling tools like go_to_definition or get_references. It specifies 'for understanding variable types, function signatures, and module documentation,' which adds precision.

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 advises using the tool 'whenever you need to get a better idea on what a particular function is doing,' which provides context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with similar tools like get_signature_help or get_symbol_documentation.

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