hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never states that it has no side effects or mutations, nor whether it requires the file to be open or compiled. Return format is only gestured at (type/value/documentation) with no structure or empty-result behavior.

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 tight sentence with the payload front-loaded after the LSP method prefix. The 'textDocument/hover:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name but overall there is no waste.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required position parameters mean the description must do the heavy lifting, and it falls short. Missing coordinate conventions and result-shape guidance make correct invocation a guess.

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, and it does not. It never explains that file/line/column locate the identifier, nor whether line and column are 0-based or 1-based — a critical ambiguity for an LSP position-based tool.

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?

Names a specific operation (hover) on a specific resource (an identifier at a position) and enumerates the returns: type, value, documentation. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like definition and references. It lacks explicit sibling contrast, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for hover rather than definition, references, or documentSymbol, and no preconditions such as requiring an open/analyzed document. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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