get_super_method

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the zero-based coordinate system and the prerequisite, but does not specify behavior when the method does not override or implement anything (e.g., returns null).

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, using only 5 sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by USAGE, OUTPUT, an IMPORTANT note, and a prerequisite. Every sentence is essential and no words are wasted.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, coordinate system, and prerequisite. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention the return type or null behavior.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by noting that line and column use zero-based coordinates, which is not captured in 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 'Find the method that this method overrides or implements.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('super method'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like find_implementations or get_method_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 explicit usage guidance: 'Position on a method that overrides/implements another' and 'OUTPUT: The superclass/interface method being overridden'. It also includes a prerequisite (load_project). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives.

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