go_to_definition

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions LSP and return values, but omits important details like prerequisites (LSP server), error handling, state changes, and performance implications.

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, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant words, but the second sentence could be merged or trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain return format details, error conditions, or how parameters interact.

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%. The description implicitly explains file_path, line, and column via 'symbol at a specific location', but entirely ignores the optional parameters language_id and position_pattern, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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?

Clearly states the action ('jump to definition'), the resource ('symbol at a specific location'), and the outcome ('returns file path and position'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like go_to_declaration or go_to_implementation, which is a missed opportunity.

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?

Provides broad usefulness ('navigating to type declarations, function implementations, or variable assignments') but no guidance on when NOT to use this tool or which alternative to choose from the many sibling navigation tools.

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