Retrieve documentation and type info for a C++ symbol at a given line and character position. Use it to inspect types, signatures, and docs at a code location.
Describe the symbol at a one-based line and zero-based code-point position. Empty configurations selects all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| configurations | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail: 'Empty configurations selects all,' which clarifies default behavior, but it does not discuss timeout handling, path semantics, or output characteristics.
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 two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The only minor issue is the awkward phrasing 'Empty configurations selects all,' but overall there is little wasted text.
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 simple read-only hover tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core action and position semantics. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not explain the required path or timeout parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent selecting the 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?
Schema description coverage is reported as 0% for top-level parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the position format (one-based line, zero-based code-point) and configurations default behavior, but it omits any explanation of the required path parameter or the timeout parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Describe the symbol' at a given position. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling clangd tools like clangd_definition or clangd_references.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the positional input format, leaving usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.