get_field_at_position

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool uses zero-based coordinates, requires load_project, and outputs field type, modifiers, and constant value. This covers key behavioral aspects for a read-only info retrieval tool.

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 with a clear purpose sentence followed by usage and output notes. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous content.

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 simple task of retrieving field info and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, coordinates, output details, and prerequisite. Sibling tools indicate this is a focused query tool.

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% (all parameters described in schema). The description only reiterates zero-based coordinates already in schema, adding minimal extra meaning. 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?

The description clearly specifies the tool retrieves field information at a given position, with explicit mention of usage on field references or declarations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_method_at_position and 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?

Describes when to use (position on a field reference or declaration) and a prerequisite (load_project must be called first). Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough.

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