lsp_hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 'Confidence: MEDIUM' and notes that type inference is experimental, with potential inaccuracies for macro-expanded identifiers, advising cross-checking. This is valuable behavioral transparency about reliability, though it doesn't address side effects or prerequisites. It adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'hover' description.

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. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by an analogy, a confidence note, and parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. The format is easy to parse and act upon.

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?

For a hover tool, the description covers the essential information: what it does, how to specify the location, and reliability caveats. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. It could mention prerequisites like needing an active LSP session or open file, but these are implied by sibling tools. The description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: file_path as absolute path, line as zero-based, character as zero-based. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing the agent with precise meaning for each parameter.

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: 'Show hover tooltip (type, docs) for the symbol under the cursor.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like lsp_definition or lsp_signature. The IDE analogy reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 analogy 'Like hovering the mouse over an identifier in an IDE' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use lsp_definition or lsp_references instead. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit routing.

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