find_node_at_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description states the tool 'identifies' a node, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior (e.g., invalid position), or side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the tool has only three self-explanatory parameters, the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves the return value and error behavior completely unspecified. The description does not compensate for these gaps, so an agent would not know what to do with the result or how to handle failure cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the input schema already provides clear descriptions for path, line, and column, including 1-based indexing. The description itself adds no extra parameter detail, so it remains at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Identifies') and a precise resource ('AST node at a given cursor position'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on declarations, functions, usages, etc. It also scopes to TypeScript/JavaScript files, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 when an agent has a positional query (line/column) in a TS/JS file, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusionary or alternative-tool guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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