get_hover_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses zero-based coordinates, prerequisite, and output nature (signature, javadoc, quick info). A minor gap: no mention of behavior on invalid positions.

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?

Extremely concise with clear headers (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT). Every sentence serves a purpose, 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?

For a simple read tool, covers purpose, usage, output, prerequisite. Lacks details on error handling or empty results, but overall complete for typical use.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining coordinates represent a symbol position and that they are zero-based, enhancing semantic understanding.

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 gets hover information (documentation) for a symbol at a position, specifying output as signature, Javadoc, and quick info. It distinguishes from siblings like get_javadoc and get_signature_help by mentioning 'hover' context, and notes zero-based coordinates.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Position on any symbol' and prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' However, it does not explicitly compare to similar position-based tools like get_method_at_position.

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