Get hover information

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns the same text the editor shows on hover, which helps the agent understand the output without contradiction.

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, focused sentence that starts with the action verb and includes the essential scope and output equivalence. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job of indicating the return content ('same text the editor shows on hover'). It lacks details about exact formatting (e.g., plain text vs. markdown), but it is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with strong annotations.

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 already has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for path, line, column, and wait_ms. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource as 'type and documentation information for the symbol at a position'. It further clarifies by noting this is 'the same text the editor shows on hover', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nvim_goto_definition or nvim_references.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving hover-style information, which is contextually distinct from other tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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