get_implementations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'find all implementations' without disclosing return format, performance, or error behavior beyond the schema's note about ambiguous names. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 three sentences, each contributing distinct information without redundancy. The main purpose is stated first, followed by context and usage strategy. No word is wasted.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description covers input usage well but omits what the tool returns or any prerequisites (e.g., indexing). It leaves the agent guessing about the result structure.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two targeting modes (symbol vs. coordinates), preferring symbol for convenience, and detailing qualification syntax. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 tool finds implementations of interfaces or abstract methods, and mentions it is useful for understanding polymorphic code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_definition or get_references, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 advises preferring the symbol name over explicit coordinates, and explains how to qualify symbols. However, it does not provide when-to-use vs. alternatives like get_type_hierarchy or get_call_hierarchy, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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