findDefinition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Find symbol definition' implies a read-only lookup operation, but it doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with 7 parameters, this minimal description fails to convey any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 just three words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification—it's too minimal to be helpful. While structured efficiently, it lacks the necessary detail for a tool of this complexity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide any context for the numerous parameters. For a lookup tool in a development environment with many siblings, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters like 'url', 'source', 'line', 'startCol', 'endCol', 'implementation', or 'mainProgram'. Without this, the agent cannot understand what inputs are needed or their meanings, making parameter usage guesswork.

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 'Find symbol definition' restates the tool name 'findDefinition' in slightly different wording, making it tautological. While it indicates a search/retrieval action related to symbols, it lacks specificity about what kind of symbols (e.g., code symbols, ABAP objects) or what 'definition' entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'ddicElement', it doesn't clearly differentiate its scope or target.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'searchObject', 'ddicElement', 'codeCompletion', and 'findObjectPath' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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