hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a safe read, but it does not state prerequisites (e.g., an active language server), behavior when no symbol is found at the position, or what the response contains.

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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves gaps handled in other dimensions rather than here.

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 read-only position query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It hints at the return content ('type/declaration info') but does not cover empty-result behavior or confirm what is returned.

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 file, line, symbol, and occurrence are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the three required parameters and adds no format or semantics beyond them, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('type/declaration info') scoped to a symbol at a line in a file, which an agent can distinguish from goto_definition or find_references. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like goto_definition or document_symbols, nor what it does when the symbol cannot be resolved. The only guidance is implied by 'type/declaration info'.

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