find_implementations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clarifies that results are runtime implementations rather than mere reference locations, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, scope limits, or behavior when no implementations exist. 'Find' implies a safe read operation, but that is left implicit.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by distinguishing the tool from reference-based siblings.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context about what the results represent and when to use it. The exact return shape is implied rather than stated, but the tool name and description make it reasonably predictable.

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% and documents both name and limit. The description adds real meaning to `name` by specifying that it can be an interface, abstract member, or virtual member, and by explaining the nature of the result. It appropriately avoids repeating the limit schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: finding concrete implementations or overrides. It also differentiates from siblings like find_references with the phrase 'what actually runs when this is called', giving the tool a precise semantic identity.

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?

It embeds a clear usage trigger: when references alone cannot tell you what actually runs, use this tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare against find_definition, but it provides enough directional guidance to select among the sibling tools.

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