go_to_declaration

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses use of LSP and the return value (file path and position). It does not mention potential errors, prerequisites (e.g., file open), or limitations. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and method, then context and return. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return type. Sibling tools are named but not detailed. Parameter explanation is missing. The description is adequate for a simple navigation tool but lacks completeness for new users unfamiliar with LSP.

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 has four parameters with zero description coverage. The tool description adds no explanation of what file_path, language_id, line, or column mean. The agent must infer parameter semantics solely from names, which is insufficient.

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's purpose: jump to the declaration of a symbol via LSP. It differentiates itself from sibling tools (go_to_definition, go_to_type_definition, go_to_implementation) and provides a concrete use case (C/C++ header files).

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 places the tool in the 'go to X' family and names siblings, giving context for when to use it. It notes it's most useful for languages with separate declaration/definition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative selection criteria beyond naming.

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