ts_go_to_source_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the main behavioral trait — resolving to the implementation rather than the .d.ts declaration — which is useful. But it says nothing about failure behavior, what happens when no source definition exists, or how the navigation result is returned, so transparency is only partial.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, the target is clear, and the important qualifier about .d.ts declarations comes immediately, making it easy to scan.

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 mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent might still be uncertain about return behavior or edge cases such as positions that aren't on a symbol. The absence of explicit sibling differentiation also leaves some contextual ambiguity.

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 already documents all three parameters (file, line, col) with 100% coverage, including that line and column are 1-indexed. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the tool's overall purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a concrete verb and target — 'Go to the source definition' — and adds a key clarifying qualifier: 'the implementation, not the .d.ts declaration.' This clearly differentiates it from goto_declaration, but it does not fully distinguish it from sibling tools like goto_implementation, which could plausibly resolve to the same target.

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 parenthetical 'the implementation, not the .d.ts declaration' gives the agent a selection criterion: use this when the desired result is the actual implementation rather than a declaration file. However, it never names alternatives or states explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the routing among goto_definition, goto_implementation, and goto_declaration mostly implied.

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