lsp_type_definition

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

No annotations available, so description carries full burden. It only states the protocol mapping but lacks details on side effects (e.g., network call), prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), or error handling. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the core purpose, second adds protocol mapping and elaboration. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description hints at return type ('type/interface/class definitions'). For a focused query tool with many siblings, the description is fairly complete. Missing error conditions or relation to other tools, but overall adequate.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The tool description does not provide additional context for parameters like typical usage or behavior when maxResults is omitted.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Find' and resource 'definition of the type of a symbol'. It distinguishes from siblings like lsp_definition (finds definition of symbol itself) and lsp_declaration. The protocol mapping further clarifies the specific LSP request.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied (when you need the type definition of a symbol's type), but no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned among the numerous similar tools.

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