hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses coordinate behavior (1-indexed lines, UTF-16 offsets on columns, tab handling), which is real behavioral context rather than restated name. However, it says nothing about what is returned when no symbol exists, whether results are plain text or markdown, or any auth/latency 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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the coordinate caveats. Every clause, including the tab note, earns its place by preventing an off-by-one or encoding error.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more: it never describes the shape of the returned hover content (type signature vs. docstring vs. both) or `file_path` semantics. The coordinate explanation is a genuine strength, but the picture is only minimum-viable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the two tricky parameters (`line`, `column`) with indexing and encoding rules. It says nothing about `file_path`, leaving open whether it is absolute or relative, and nothing about valid ranges.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Get type/documentation info for the symbol at a position." This clearly separates it from a location-returning sibling like `definition`, but it never names or contrasts with the closest siblings (`symbol_info`, `definition`), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite a crowded sibling set (`definition`, `symbol_info`, `references`, `implementations`). Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase "at a position."

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