get_signature

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a read-only operation (no side effects) and details the behavior: showing parameters, types, and active parameter based on cursor position. No contradictions with missing annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence of moderate length that conveys the core purpose and behavior. Every clause earns its place with no waste.

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 no output schema, the description could clarify the return format (e.g., list of signatures, active parameter index). However, the tool's name and common IDE conventions make the return format predictable. The coverage of use case, parameters, and behavior is sufficient for agent selection.

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 explaining the symbol parameter's qualification format (e.g., 'Container.member') and that ambiguous names return error with candidates. This goes beyond the schema's brief description and helps the agent use the parameter correctly.

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 retrieves function signature help when the cursor is inside parentheses. It specifies the resource (parameter names, types, active parameter) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_hover or get_completions.

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 explains when to use this tool (cursor inside function call parentheses) and implicitly distinguishes it from get_hover and get_completions by targeting signature-specific information. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other cursor positions.

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