codeCompletionElement

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. The description only states what the tool does ('retrieves'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are structured, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves'), though this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness. Every word serves a purpose in the minimal description provided.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'code completion element information' entails, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar tools. The minimal description fails to provide necessary context for effective tool use.

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 description provides no information about any of the 4 required parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to retrieving code completion element information. This leaves parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Retrieves code completion element information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'codeCompletionElement' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'code completion element information', but doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'codeCompletion' or 'codeCompletionFull', leaving the specific purpose unclear.

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. There are multiple related tools in the sibling list (codeCompletion, codeCompletionFull), but the description doesn't indicate what differentiates this tool from those, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage.

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