goto_definition

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

The description adds some behavioral context by noting the output is 'capped `file:line`', indicating a result limit and format. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or details about the cap (e.g., max results). This is adequate but 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: two sentences and a note. Every part is essential, and key information is front-loaded. No 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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description falls short of full completeness. It does not explain the return value structure beyond 'file:line', nor does it cover optional parameters like projectPath, backend, or maxResults. However, for a focused navigation tool, the core behavior is captured.

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 description adds meaning to the 'kind' parameter by listing its options and default value. Other parameters (path, line, character, projectPath, backend, maxResults) are not elaborated beyond their schema descriptions. Since schema coverage is 57%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for non-kind parameters.

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: 'Jump from a 0-based position to a definition (semantic)'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'find_references' by explicitly stating 'For usages, use find_references'.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context: navigation to definitions, type definitions, implementations, or declarations. It also gives a clear alternative for usages (find_references), guiding the agent on tool selection.

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