type_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 mentions the tool navigates to type definitions and returns a dictionary with locations or status/message, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files or requires specific server state), leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section that efficiently documents parameters and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return structure, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks context on when to use versus siblings and behavioral details like error cases, slightly reducing completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'file_path' is an absolute path to a Java file, 'line' is a 0-indexed line number, and 'character' is a 0-indexed character position, clarifying usage that isn't evident from the schema alone. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Navigate to the type definition of a symbol') and resource ('a symbol at the given position'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'definition' or 'hover' by focusing on type definitions specifically. The verb 'navigate' implies movement or redirection to the definition location.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'definition' or 'hover'. The description implies usage for Java files and symbol navigation, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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