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 or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The single sentence offers no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence fails to provide necessary information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding despite its short length.

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 (5 required parameters), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides minimal information about what the tool does and nothing about how to use it effectively, making it insufficient for agent decision-making.

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?

With 5 required parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'sourceUrl', 'source', 'line', 'column', or 'patternKey' mean or how they should be used, leaving all parameter semantics 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 'Performs full code completion' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'codeCompletionFull' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'full' means or distinguish this tool from sibling 'codeCompletion' and 'codeCompletionElement' tools, leaving the purpose vague and undifferentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'codeCompletion' or 'codeCompletionElement'. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools, making it impossible for an agent to make an informed selection.

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