Navigate to concrete implementations of an interface or abstract method. Returns exact file and line locations.
Go to implementations of an interface or abstract method. Returns concrete implementation locations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| col | Yes | Column number (1-indexed) | |
| file | Yes | Relative file path from project root | |
| line | Yes | Line number (1-indexed) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that locations are returned, but does not clarify whether the tool also navigates, how multiple locations are represented, what happens when no implementations exist, or whether it is strictly read-only.
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 short sentences communicate the core purpose with no filler. The key operation and expected result are front-loaded.
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?
For a simple navigation tool with fully documented parameters, this is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should more richly explain the return representation and how this relates to sibling navigation tools.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for file, line, and col, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the target context.
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 operation and target: 'Go to implementations of an interface or abstract method' and clarifies the result as 'concrete implementation locations.' This meaningfully distinguishes it from navigation siblings like goto_definition and goto_type_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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs implementations of an interface or abstract method. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.