get_info_on_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key prerequisite ("Requires the file to be opened first") and implies a read-only operation via "retrieve." However, it does not mention error behavior, return format details, or any side effects, leaving notable gaps for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences elaborate on use cases and the file-open prerequisite without significant redundancy. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what information it retrieves, when to use it, and a critical prerequisite. It does not explain failure modes for invalid locations or unopened files, but for a hover tool this is acceptable. The return content is described in broad terms, which suffices in the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it references "specific location" (mapping to line/column) but provides no additional syntax, relationships, or examples that would elevate the score.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Get information on a specific location in a file via LSP hover," clearly identifying the tool's function. It further distinguishes from siblings by detailing the nature of information (type info, documentation, contextual details), which differentiates it from get_completions or get_code_actions.

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 clear usage context: "Use this whenever you need to get a better idea on what a particular function is doing in that context," and lists specific scenarios like understanding variable types, function signatures, and module documentation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it misses the top tier, but the context is unambiguous.

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