Wick

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'finds' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires an active Godot project, LSP connection, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the symbol isn't found). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Finds the definition... of the symbol at the given position') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 of LSP-based symbol definition lookup, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on usage or behavioral traits, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a file path and line number) or error conditions, leaving critical gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for filePath, line, and character parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'symbol' entails or format expectations). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Finds the definition (source file and line) of the symbol at the given position.' It specifies the verb ('finds'), resource ('definition'), and scope ('symbol at the given position'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gd_lsp_hover or gd_lsp_symbols, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected LSP server via gd_lsp_connect), nor does it clarify use cases (e.g., for code navigation vs. documentation lookup with gd_lsp_hover). This lack of context leaves the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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