get_field_at_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output (field type, modifiers, constant value) and the zero-based coordinate requirement, but omits details on error handling, read-only nature, or performance. This is adequate 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 very concise, using only a few sentences and bullet-style formatting. Key information (usage, output, prerequisite) is front-loaded, with no unnecessary text.

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 simple tool with fully documented schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and a prerequisite. Minor gaps exist (e.g., behavior when no field is found), but overall sufficient.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds the zero-based coordinate emphasis, which reinforces schema info but does not substantially increase semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves field information at a position, specifying usage on field references/declarations and listing output details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_method_at_position or get_type_at_position.

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 specifies that load_project must be called first and that zero-based coordinates are used. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the tool's name and sibling list provide sufficient context for selection.

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