get_code_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (file opened first) and gives examples, but does not state whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or error behavior. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 concise at three sentences, each serving a purpose: the first states the action, the second provides usage and examples, and the third notes the prerequisite. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and prerequisite, which is sufficient for a straightforward tool. However, since no output schema exists, it does not explicitly explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of code action objects). This omission prevents a perfect score.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning beyond mapping 'specific range' to the line/column fields. It does not enhance the schema's parameter descriptions, meriting the baseline score for high coverage.

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: 'Get code actions for a specific range in a file.' It elaborates with examples of code actions (adding imports, fixing errors, implementing interfaces) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_completions or get_diagnostics by focusing on refactorings and quick fixes.

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 explicit usage guidance ('Use this tool to obtain available refactorings...') and a key prerequisite ('Requires the file to be opened first.'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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