doc_definition

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the plan requirement and the action itself, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value is, or what happens if the symbol is not found or if the plan is insufficient.

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 one concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose and adding a critical plan constraint. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 empty schema and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not clarify how to specify the symbol, what a 'definition' entails, or what the response looks like. For a simple tool this may be sufficient, but the ambiguity around input makes it incomplete.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. However, the description implies a 'doc symbol' input but gives no parameter name or format. This ambiguity reduces the usefulness for an agent attempting to construct a valid invocation.

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 a specific action (go-to-definition) on a specific resource (doc symbol), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_hover or doc_search_symbols. The phrase 'PRO+ plan' adds a clear constraint.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no context about prerequisites (beyond plan) or scenarios (e.g., 'use after finding a symbol'). No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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