Go to Definition

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

The description adds the 'fundamental query' context but doesn't detail behavior beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint) already convey. It doesn't mention multiple definitions, error handling, or output format. With annotations covering safety, minimal extra value.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, no redundant words. The question format in the second sentence front-loads the core query intent. Every word 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?

Despite good annotations and full schema, the description lacks completeness given the complex sibling toolset and absence of output schema. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., array of locations) or edge cases (symbol not found). More context would improve decision-making.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds nothing about parameters; schema already defines file, line, and offset, including their types and meanings. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns file location(s) where a symbol is defined, using the simple question 'where is this thing declared?' This distinguishes it from siblings like definitionAndBoundSpan and findSourceDefinition, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives like definitionAndBoundSpan or findSourceDefinition. In a toolset with many similar navigation tools, explicit usage context is missing, leaving the agent to guess.

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