definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return format (path:line:column). However, it says nothing about the input position semantics, error behavior when no definition exists, or whether the file must be open, leaving clear 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?

A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the result format appended. It earns its space but is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three completely undocumented parameters leave the definition too thin to invoke reliably. The return-format hint helps but does not cover input semantics or edge cases.

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 0% across three required parameters (file, line, column), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies line/column matter but only via the return format string, not by explaining that these identify the cursor position of the identifier.

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?

States a specific action (finding where an identifier is defined) and its output shape (path:line:column), which is clearer than a bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `references`, which is the inverse operation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 says what the tool returns but nothing about when to use it versus alternatives. The sibling `references` (find all usages) is the obvious counterpart, and no when-to-use or exclusion guidance is offered.

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