findDefinition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find symbol definition' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it's a read-only lookup, requires authentication, has side effects, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 required), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about behavior, parameters, return values, or usage context. For a tool that appears to locate symbol definitions in what seems like a code analysis context, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.

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 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—not what 'url', 'source', 'line', 'startCol', 'endCol', 'implementation', or 'mainProgram' mean or how they should be used. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented, which is unacceptable for a tool with this complexity.

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 'Find symbol definition' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'findDefinition'. It provides a verb ('Find') and resource ('symbol definition'), but lacks specificity about what kind of symbols, in what context, or how this differs from similar tools like 'searchObject' or 'codeCompletion' in the sibling list. The purpose is vague and doesn't help distinguish this tool from alternatives.

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. With many sibling tools like 'searchObject', 'codeCompletion', 'ddicElement', and 'objectStructure' that might relate to finding definitions or symbols, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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