Go to Type Definition

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context (navigates to type definition) without contradicting annotations. It doesn't disclose additional traits like performance or side effects, but it's consistent and clear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key distinction, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 (navigation, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and distinction from a sibling tool, with good annotations providing safety context.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (file, line, offset). The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it focuses on the tool's function. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: navigating to a type's definition, not a variable's declaration. It provides a concrete example distinguishing it from the `definition` sibling tool, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with `definition`, telling the agent when to use `typeDefinition` vs. `definition`. This provides clear usage guidance and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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