get_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (type signature, JSDoc) and error behavior for ambiguous symbols. However, it omits details like output structure (e.g., is it a single string or structured object?), possible errors for missing symbols, and any side effects or permissions. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds distinct information. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately. It mentions the return type and error condition. It does not explain output format or what happens for non-existent symbols, but these are minor gaps. For the complexity level, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the two targeting modes and stating a preference for symbol name, and mentions that an ambiguous name returns error with candidates. These are useful clarifications but not transformative beyond the schema's detailed descriptions.

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 tool gets type information and documentation for a symbol, using specific verbs and resource. It mentions returning both type signature and JSDoc comments, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_signature (only signature) or get_definition (only location). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, which prevents a top score.

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 guidance on using symbol name (preferred) vs. file/line/column, and mentions qualifying symbols to disambiguate. This helps the agent choose the right input mode. However, it does not advise when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_type_definition or get_signature, and lacks explicit when-not or exclusion criteria.

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