get_completions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'context-aware' but gives no behavioral details: no indication of side effects, cost, rate limits, or return structure. The word 'Get' suggests read-only, but this is not explicitly stated, and the agent cannot infer safety or performance 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 no wasted words. However, the second sentence ('Context-aware suggestions.') is vague and adds little value. The description is appropriately brief but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool with 4 parameters, a complex anyOf constraint, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, error behavior (e.g., ambiguous symbol), or how to effectively use the two alternative invocation patterns. The description relies entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes 'position' and 'context-aware'. The anyOf constraint is not summarized, and the symbol parameter's behavior is left to the schema alone.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('code completion suggestions') with a location ('at a position'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_hover or get_signature, though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The term 'context-aware' adds some specificity but is vague.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 27 sibling tools covering similar positional analysis, the absence of when/when-not instructions leaves the agent to infer from context. The description implies use for autocomplete but does not exclude other tools.

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