get_enclosing_element

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

With no annotations, the description discloses zero-based coordinates and the need for prior load_project. It does not detail error handling or return structure, but it provides enough behavioral context for correct invocation.

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, using a clear structure with a title, usage line, output line, and important note. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (enclosing method, type, package info). It covers prerequisites and coordinate system, making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the zero-based coordinate system and clarifies that the output relates to enclosing elements, adding value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get the enclosing element') and the resource ('at a position'), and lists the output types (method, type, package info). This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_method_at_position' which are more specific.

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?

Explicitly states usage ('Position anywhere in code') and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). While it does not compare to alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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