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 the mechanism (LSP) and return value (file path and position), but does not reveal side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or prerequisites like requiring an open document. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: action/mechanism, family context, usage advice and return value. Front-loaded and to the point with no redundant information.

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?

The description lacks parameter explanations and does not specify format (e.g., line/column indexing, language_id values). With no output schema, it mentions return value but is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), yet the description provides no explanation of parameters (file_path, line, column, language_id). It does not add value beyond parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 ('jump to declaration') and resource ('symbol at a location in a file via LSP'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the 'go to X' family and specifying languages like C/C++ where declaration differs from definition.

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 states when the tool is most useful (languages with separate declaration/definition) and names the related sibling tools for context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparison to siblings.

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