getCompletions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and fails to mention whether it works on unsaved files, whether it requires network access, or how it handles ambiguous positions. The description is too brief to adequately inform an agent about the tool's 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or organize details hierarchically. While brevity is valued, the description could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover how parameters interact (e.g., file path vs. content, line/col overrides). It fails to explain return format or pagination. The description is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 input schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Get autocomplete suggestions at a position' clearly indicates the tool's purpose: to retrieve autocomplete suggestions, with an implied positional context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getHover or getDefinition, which could be confused for providing similar context-specific information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., file must be in a project), nor does it indicate scenarios where this tool would be inappropriate. The lack of usage context forces the agent to infer from the name alone.

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