get_hover_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the precondition and specifies the output format. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is non-destructive or if there are any side effects, though the read-only nature is implied. The description is adequate but not enriched beyond the minimum.

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 three short sections: purpose, usage instructions, and output summary. It is front-loaded with the core action. While efficient, it could be more structured with explicit labels like 'Prerequisites' but overall minimal waste.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return value: 'Signature, Javadoc, and quick info similar to IDE hover.' It also includes the prerequisite (load_project), making the tool's behavior and dependencies complete for its simple information-retrieval nature.

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 three parameters have descriptions). The description reiterates the zero-based coordinate system, which is also specified in the schema, adding little new semantic information. Baseline 3 applies; no additional parameter details are provided 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 'Get hover information (documentation) for a symbol at a position.' It specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'hover information/documentation', and the context 'symbol at a position'. It further describes the output as 'Signature, Javadoc, and quick info similar to IDE hover', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_javadoc or get_signature_help that return only one component.

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 a precondition: 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It also notes 'IMPORTANT: Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates.' However, it does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_javadoc or get_signature_help, leaving the agent to infer the distinction without explicit selection criteria.

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