completion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful trait — results are capped at the first 50 — but omits whether this is read-only, what happens on out-of-range positions, error behavior, and the exact return shape. The cap disclosure is genuine added value but far from complete.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the method name and the key content qualifier. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin for a three-parameter tool standing among ten siblings. It should at least clarify the position semantics and how it differs from symbol-lookup tools.

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 coverage is 0% and there are three required parameters (file, line, column). The description never explains what these mean or how they interact, e.g. that line/column denote a cursor position (and whether zero- or one-based). The names are largely self-evident, which prevents a 1, but the description adds nothing.

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 names an LSP method (textDocument/completion) and states the returned content: names in scope and theorem names. That is more specific than a tautology, but it uses a noun ('completion') rather than a clear verb and does not distinguish this from siblings like documentSymbol or workspaceSymbol, which also surface symbols/names. An agent gets the gist but must infer the action.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings, and no exclusions or context. The agent is left to guess whether completion, documentSymbol, or workspaceSymbol is appropriate for a given lookup. Only the implicit LSP convention hints at usage.

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