codeCompletion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 required parameters.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 (4 required parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context for tool invocation, such as parameter usage, behavioral expectations, or output details.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'sourceUrl', 'source', 'line', or 'column' represent, their expected formats, or how they interact. For 4 undocumented parameters, this is insufficient.

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 'Get code completion suggestions' restates the tool name 'codeCompletion' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('code completion suggestions') but lacks detail on scope or mechanism, failing to distinguish from sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' or 'codeCompletionFull'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'codeCompletionElement' or 'codeCompletionFull'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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