hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the operation's nature (read-only vs mutating), permissions, or output. It only clarifies coordinate semantics, which belongs more to parameter semantics than behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler, front-loading the tool's purpose before the parameter disambiguation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the tricky coordinate params are covered. However, with no annotations and no usage context, the description stops short of fully equipping an agent to pick this over its siblings.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the non-obvious parameters: it states line/column are 1-indexed and that column is a UTF-16 offset where a tab counts as one character. It leaves file_path unexplained, but that param is largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (type/documentation info) tied to a symbol at a position, which matches the well-known IDE 'hover' concept. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like symbol_info or definition, which could plausibly overlap.

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 hover versus symbol_info, definition, or references, nor any exclusions. The phrase 'at a position' loosely implies usage, but alternative selection is left entirely to inference.

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