get_field_at_position

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

No annotations provided. Description implies read-only operation without side effects but does not detail error behavior (e.g., if position is not a field) or response format. Adds prerequisite but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two compact paragraphs with clear USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT sections. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Comprehensive for a simple tool: details output fields, coordinates, and prerequisite. Lacks specification of behavior when position is not a field (e.g., returns null/error), but no output schema exists. Minor gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds critical context: 'Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates' and 'Position on a field reference or declaration', which aids correct invocation beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Get field information at a specific position' and specifies output (type, modifiers, constant value). Distinguishes from siblings like get_method_at_position and get_type_at_position by targeting fields.

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 prerequisite 'requires load_project', usage 'Position on a field reference or declaration', and zero-based coordinates. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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