get_signature_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions zero-based coordinates and the load_project prerequisite but omits details on error handling, response structure, or behavior for invalid positions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with four short lines, each providing distinct and necessary information. No redundant or vague statements; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description gives a high-level output summary ('Method signatures with parameter info') but lacks specifics on format (e.g., string or structured) and does not differentiate from similar inspection tools. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, and the description adds useful context by highlighting the zero-based coordinate system for line and column parameters. It does not add extra info for filePath, but the overall improvement over schema is meaningful.

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 gets method signature help at a position, specifying usage on method calls or declarations. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_hover_info or get_method_at_position, which may serve similar purposes.

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 includes explicit usage context ('Position on a method call or declaration') and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). It does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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