zig_completions

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

No annotations exist to cover behavioral traits. The description only states the operation without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence with all essential elements: action, resource, method, and target. No redundant words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 100% schema coverage, the tool has no output schema and 4 parameters. The description fails to explain what the completion results look like, pagination, or error scenarios. For a completions tool, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'via ZLS', which is a implementation detail, not parameter-specific.

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's function: 'Get completion suggestions at a specific position in a Zig file via ZLS'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('completion suggestions'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like zig_build, zig_definition, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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