implementations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the underlying mechanism (LSP textDocument/implementation), that results are transitive, that it follows type-checker semantics, and that it is JS/TS only. It does not mention result limits or truncation, but the operational profile is otherwise clear.

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?

Front-loads the purpose as a question, then an example, then the precise semantics. Slightly redundant (the question and the following sentence cover similar ground) but every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description conveys what the return contains (implementing/extending classes or methods), the language restriction, and the resolution behavior for arguments. Adequate for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around result limits.

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 must compensate, and it does: `name` resolves like symbol_info, `file_path` disambiguates, and `query` is an accepted alias. All three parameters are given meaning beyond the bare schema, though it never states which is required.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: lists classes that implement/extend an interface or class, or methods implementing an abstract method, and gives a concrete invocation example. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like references, callers, and definition.

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?

Explains the context in which it applies (interfaces, classes, abstract methods) and notes it follows the type checker rather than naming, which implicitly separates it from text-search siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer references/callers instead.

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