go_to_definition

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 adds meaningful context by stating the search is workspace-wide and targets exact definition/declaration locations. Still, it leaves important behavioral details undisclosed, such as whether an index must exist first, how missing or ambiguous symbols are handled, and whether the operation is purely 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It conveys the core action, target, and scope efficiently while listing relevant symbol categories without over-elaborating.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the basic action is clear, the description lacks usage guidance relative to its three sibling tools and fails to explain two of three parameters. With no annotations, this is too thin to fully support an agent in choosing and invoking the tool correctly across realistic scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate for bare parameter schemas. It partially clarifies symbol_name by listing supported symbol types, but it says nothing about the format of symbol_name (e.g., fully qualified vs simple name, case sensitivity). The limit and directory_path parameters are completely unaddressed in the description, leaving their semantics to inference from the schema titles and defaults.

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 specific verb ('Finds') with a precise resource: the exact definition/declaration location of symbols, listing supported symbol categories and clarifying the search scope ('across workspace files'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_ast_usages or semantic_search, which target usages or semantically similar matches rather than exact definitions.

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 phrasing 'exact definition/declaration location' implies the tool is appropriate when precise definitions are needed, rather than usages or semantic matches. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over semantic_search or find_ast_usages, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an indexed workspace.

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