definition_of

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the return structure: definition sites with file:line and a provenance field explaining match trust. This adds meaningful behavioral detail not available elsewhere.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and timing; the second explains return format and trust meaning. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage timing, return format, provenance semantics, and trust considerations. No essential information is missing.

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 schema already documents 'query' as a symbol name or fragment (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining that substring fallback can happen and that provenance indicates match reliability, which enriches the parameter semantics.

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 jumps to where a symbol is defined, a specific action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling reference, caller, and callee tools by focusing on definition sites and their provenance.

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 offers clear usage context: call this before reading or editing a symbol to locate its definition. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the situational guidance is sufficient.

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