get_signature_help

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

The description discloses that the tool 'Returns available overloads and highlights the active parameter,' which is key behavioral info. Since no annotations are provided, the description alone must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., an open document and active LSP server) or side effects, but for a read-like operation this is acceptable.

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 very concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains return behavior ('Returns available overloads...'). Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. However, it lacks details like whether the tool requires an active LSP server or an open document, which are important operational contexts. For a 4-parameter tool with no enums or nested objects, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0% description coverage, leaving the description to add meaning. The description does not explain individual parameters beyond implying they specify a location (file_path, line, column). language_id is not mentioned. The field names in the schema are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description could add clarity on required vs optional and valid values.

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's purpose: 'Get function signature help at a specific location in a file via LSP.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (function signature help), and includes context (via LSP). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_completions or get_document_symbols by focusing on signature help.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the cursor is inside a function call's argument list to understand what parameters the function expects.' This helps the AI agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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