find_implementations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it uses structural typing without go/types, reports partial matches that indicate embedding, and warns about verifying pointer-receiver signatures. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 two precise sentences plus a one-sentence caution. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the heuristic approach, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancies.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (types, partial matches with missing methods). It covers the heuristic nature and verification need. It could mention performance considerations or scope, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an experienced Go developer.

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%, so the schema already describes all three parameters (repo, format, interface). The description does not add additional meaning or examples for any parameter, resulting in a baseline score.

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 uses specific verbs ('find which concrete types implement') and clearly identifies the resource ('Go interface'). It distinguishes from similar tools by stating it provides 'a heuristic interface→implementation map without go/types' that 'ranked search can't' do. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 recommends when to use the tool: 'Use to answer what satisfies this interface?' and contrasts it with 'ranked search.' It provides a caution about heuristic nature and verification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond mentioning ranked search.

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