goto_implementation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the LSP mechanism, but does not disclose limitations (e.g., language support, behavior when no implementations exist, or potential side effects). This is minimal transparency.

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, efficient sentence of 10 words. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple tool with no output schema and only 3 well-documented parameters, the description provides adequate context (purpose and mechanism). It may be slightly lacking for edge cases (e.g., multiple implementations), but overall 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter (file, line, col). The description adds context that these are used for position specification, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 finds implementations of an interface or abstract method via LSP. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('implementations'), and the mention of 'interface or abstract method' distinguishes it from sibling tools like goto_definition or get_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 implies usage when needing to locate concrete implementations via LSP, and the sibling list provides alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusions (e.g., for regular methods).

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