get_method_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 discloses the output contents (method signature, parameters, etc.) and the coordinate system (zero-based). It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or error conditions.

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 and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, followed by usage, output, an important note, and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, output contents, coordinate system, and a prerequisite. It lacks details on error handling or performance, but is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the zero-based coordinates, adding value, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool retrieves method information at a specific position, specifying that it works on method references or declarations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_field_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 provides usage context ('Position on a method reference or declaration') and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over other navigation tools, such as get_hover_info or get_symbol_info.

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