analyze_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It openly declares that the tool is a read-only aggregation of multiple analysis actions—no mention of side effects, permissions, or performance implications. The bundled nature is disclosed, but a description of what happens if the file/position is invalid or if the symbol is ambiguous is missing from the description (though the symbol parameter's error note covers one edge case).

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?

A single, well-crafted sentence that front-loads the key benefit ('Get comprehensive analysis at a position') and lists the included features without any filler. Every word 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?

Given the 4 parameters (all documented in schema at 100% coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose and scope. The missing pieces are minor: no mention of return format, how errors are reported (e.g., if both line/column and symbol are provided), or rate-limit considerations. But for a combined read tool, the current description is largely sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics—it does not explain how 'file', 'line', 'column' interact (the schema already shows the anyOf requirement) or what 'signature help' includes. The symbol parameter description in the schema is already quite detailed, so the description adds no incremental value beyond the schema.

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 strong, specific verb ('Get comprehensive analysis') and clearly identifies the resource ('a position') and the bundled capabilities: hover info, definition, references, diagnostics, and signature help. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hover, get_definition, get_references, get_diagnostics, and get_signature that each handle only a single aspect.

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 this is a one-stop shop for all text-document-or-symbol analysis, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., if you only need a fast definition lookup) or name alternatives for sub-set use cases. A simple exclusion note would elevate this to 5.

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