codeql_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a dictionary with hover information and metadata, and mentions 'documentation, type information' which gives some idea of the output. But it does not describe error behavior (e.g., invalid position) or any side effects. For a simple read-only hover tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-organized into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers purpose, all three parameters, and the return shape. Output schema exists, so return details are structured elsewhere. Missing info like error conditions or exact metadata content is a minor gap but not critical for a hover tool.

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 schema provides only types, with 0% description coverage. The description adds critical semantics: file_uri is a URI, and line/character are 0-based positions. This is highly valuable for correct invocation and goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Retrieves hover information') and a resource ('at a specific position'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like codeql_definition and codeql_references by focusing on documentation/type hover details.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need hover context like documentation or type info at a position. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as definition or references, so guidance is only implicit.

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