goto_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup, which is correct and useful, but it does not state the return shape (a location? a list?), behavior when the symbol has no declaration, or whether unresolved symbols error or return empty.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the essential qualifier (the symbol's written position) is front-loaded inside the same sentence. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 simple read-only lookup with complete schema coverage and no nested objects, the description covers all three required inputs. The main gap is the absent output schema combined with no statement of what the result looks like, which an agent must discover at call time.

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 description coverage is 100%, so file/line/symbol/occurrence are already fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description's parenthetical restates the schema's meaning of file/line/symbol without adding detail, and never mentions the optional `occurrence` parameter.

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?

Specific verb (find) with a precise resource (the declaration site of `symbol`) and the exact input framing (as written on `line` of `file`). The word 'declared' implicitly separates it from find_references, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's semantics: supply the exact symbol text at a known position and get its declaration. However, there is no stated when-to-use vs. find_references/hover guidance, and no note about prerequisites (e.g., file must be indexed/parseable).

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