hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves information (implying read-only behavior) and mentions return values with 'content' or 'status'/'message', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It adds some context but is not comprehensive for behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, and the output schema handles return details. However, it lacks guidance on usage versus siblings and could include more behavioral context like initialization status.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters (file_path, line, character) in the 'Args' section, explaining they specify the Java file and 0-indexed position. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could include format examples or constraints.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('hover information'), specifying it retrieves Javadoc or type info for a symbol at a given position. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hover details rather than definitions, diagnostics, or other symbol-related operations.

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 usage context by mentioning 'Javadoc, type info' and 'symbol at the given position', suggesting it's for code analysis in Java files. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'definition' or 'type_definition', nor provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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