find_implementations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses behavioral details: containing directory scanning, explicit and indirect subclasses, and structural method-set matching. This gives the agent a good sense of what the tool does beyond the name.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the Args section provides necessary parameter details without verbose or redundant content. Every sentence earns its place, including the naming note.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and scanning behavior. It does not need to describe return values because the output schema exists. The tool is simple enough that this is complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains that `path` can be a .py file or directory and that the containing directory is scanned, and it clarifies that `interface` is the Protocol/ABC/base class name. It even explains the naming rationale for cross-server consistency.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find classes implementing a Protocol or ABC'. It also clarifies the scope (explicit and structural) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_usages by targeting implementations rather than generic usages.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need implementers of a Protocol/ABC) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context about path handling, but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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