lsp_implementation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and LSP mapping, omitting details like read-only nature, potential errors (e.g., symbol not found), or system impact. This is insufficient for a safe tool invocation.

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 concise at two short sentences, front-loading the action and resource. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear.

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 complexity (3 parameters, simple semantics) and absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for the core function, but it lacks completeness for a production environment. Missing details like result type (list of locations) and prerequisites (active language server) could confuse agents.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action (find implementations) and resource (interface, trait, abstract class, or method). It also maps to LSP and answers the question 'who implements this?', which distinguishes it from related tools like lsp_definition or lsp_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 for finding implementations but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling LSP tools. The mapping to textDocument/implementation is a hint but not actionable for decision-making.

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