go_to_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns definition location(s) or an error message, and details input parameters. It's transparent for a simple read operation, though it doesn't mention side effects or permissions, which are expected to be minimal.

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 extremely concise: a purpose statement, a parameter list with clear explanations, and a return description. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks detail about the output structure beyond 'Definition location(s) or error message'. The presence of an output schema (per context signals) could mitigate this, but the description doesn't leverage it. For a basic navigation tool, this may suffice, but it's not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter clearly: project_path is absolute path to Dart project root, file_path is absolute path to Dart file, line is 0-indexed, column is 0-indexed. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.

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 'Go to definition of symbol at position' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_references' and 'get_hover', which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage when needing to find a symbol's definition, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions are mentioned, so it's adequate but not strong.

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