Wick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Simulates hovering' to get info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active LSP connection, potential latency, error handling, or the format of returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, target, and outcome concisely.

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 of an LSP hover tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., dependencies, error cases) and doesn't explain what the return values might include (e.g., documentation strings, type signatures), which is crucial for effective use by an AI 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (filePath, line, character). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these parameters target a symbol for hover info, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Simulates hovering') and the resource ('a symbol at a specific line and character') with the purpose of getting 'documentation and type info'. It's specific but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gd_lsp_definition' or 'gd_lsp_symbols', which might provide related information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connected LSP server via 'gd_lsp_connect'), exclusions, or how it differs from other LSP-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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