get_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 correctly implies a read-only operation ('Find where a symbol is defined') and documents the two targeting modes. However, it does not specify the return format or handle edge cases like multiple definitions, leaving the agent to infer critical usage details from the schema alone.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second expands on targeting without any wasted words or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that the tool has no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return structure (e.g., a location object with file/line/range). It also does not address whether multiple definitions are returned for overloaded symbols. While the parameters are fully covered, the missing output specification leaves a gap for an agent trying to use the result.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (including qualification hints for 'symbol' and error behavior for ambiguity). The description adds only a summary preference for 'symbol' as the primary method, which provides marginal added value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Find where a symbol is defined. Jump from usage to declaration.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that directly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_references (which finds all usages) and get_type_definition (which finds the type's definition). The addition of two targeting methods further clarifies the tool's capability.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_type_definition, get_implementations, get_references). While it explains two ways to specify the target, it fails to mention when one method is preferred over another in terms of tool choice. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context about prerequisites.

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