find_definition

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the AST-precise vs. BM25 fallback modes and that each hit indicates its source, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and usage guidance. It is well-structured with a clear flow and no unnecessary words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not fully explain return values, but it does mention that 'each hit says which' mechanism was used. This gives a reasonable hint about the output. The description sufficiently covers the tool's context and edge cases (AST vs. BM25).

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters, and the descriptions are present but minimal (e.g., 'Max results', 'Source name', 'Identifier'). They clarify the data type and purpose but do not add much beyond the schema definitions. This is at the baseline expected for full 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 tool's purpose: 'Jump to a symbol definition' and specifies the exact resource (symbol definitions) and the action (jump). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming 'search' and 'describe_symbol' 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use `search` instead when you can only describe what the code does, and describe_symbol when you also want the callers and the tests in the same call.' This gives clear conditions for selection.

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