super_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an environmental requirement (SUPERDB_LSP_PATH), which adds some context, but it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., completion items, error messages), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a prerequisite. There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 a code completion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what completions look like), error handling, or behavioral traits like whether it's a read operation. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, line, character). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how line and character offsets work in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Get code completions') and resource ('for a SuperSQL query at a position'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like super_query or super_help, which might also involve query-related operations, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 some context by mentioning the requirement for SUPERDB_LSP_PATH to be set, which implies when to use it (when that environment variable is configured). However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as super_help for general assistance or super_query for executing queries, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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