codeql_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details inputs and return type but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not modify the file, or discuss any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The word 'provides' implies non-destructive behavior but is not explicit.

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 appropriately sized: a one-sentence purpose statement, a structured Args list, and a Returns line. Every part earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity, the output schema, and the complete parameter explanations, the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, it omits usage context (e.g., when to call it) and potential error cases, so it stops just short of fully complete.

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 includes an Args section that explains all 6 parameters, including their meaning and defaults (e.g., 'line: 0-based line number', 'limit: Maximum number of completions to return (default: 50)'). This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage, which only provides types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Provides code completions at a specific position in a CodeQL file', which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like hover, definition, and references, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this tool is for autocomplete-style suggestions based on the description's wording, but the description does not state when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it.

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