go_to_implementation

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

The description states it uses LSP and returns file paths and positions, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the file must be open, if an LSP server is required, or how it handles cases with no implementations. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but leaves gaps.

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 long with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and mechanism, the second provides a usage scenario. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and output format. It could be more complete by detailing edge cases or output behavior, but it is sufficient for basic understanding and use.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds context that the tool uses a location (file_path, line, column) to find implementations, but does not explain the optional language_id parameter or provide syntax details. It adds some value but insufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies 'Find all implementations of an interface or abstract method at a specific location in a file via LSP', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like go_to_definition or go_to_declaration by explicitly targeting implementations.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use this to navigate from an interface declaration or abstract method to the concrete classes that implement it.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_references or type_hierarchy.

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