codeCompletionFull

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the expected output format might be. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, there's zero wasted language. Every word contributes to the minimal statement of purpose, even though that statement is inadequate.

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?

For a tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no differentiation from the similar 'codeCompletion' tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient information 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 description provides no information about any of the 5 required parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column, patternKey). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. The agent would have no semantic understanding of what values to provide for code completion.

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 'Performs full code completion' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'codeCompletionFull'. It doesn't specify what type of code completion, what programming languages or environments it supports, or what distinguishes 'full' completion from the sibling 'codeCompletion' tool. The description is too vague to understand the actual purpose beyond the obvious.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'codeCompletion' (without the 'Full' suffix), there's clearly a need to differentiate usage scenarios, but the description offers no help. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for this tool.

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