goToTypeDefinition

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds that it navigates to where the type is defined, but does not disclose behavioral traits like what happens if the symbol has no type definition or if it modifies state (though read-only is clear). With annotations present, the description provides marginal extra context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides differentiation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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) and the presence of sibling differentiators, the description is largely complete. It lacks error handling or return details, but for a navigation tool this is acceptable. The mention of siblings adds enough 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (filePath, line, column), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so 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 navigates to the type definition of a symbol, using the specific verb 'go to' and specifying the resource 'type definition'. It also distinguishes itself from goToDefinition (declaration) and goToDeclaration, making its purpose unambiguous among siblings.

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 with goToDefinition and mentions the alternative goToDeclaration, guiding when to use this tool (for type definition vs declaration). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites, but the context is clear.

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