find_definition

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains it consults a tree-sitter-indexed symbol table built at reindex time, and mentions speed and accuracy. However, it does not cover what happens if symbol is not found or error cases.

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 purpose and usage guidance. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value. Some redundancy in listing symbol types and emphasizing speed.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return type SymbolDef[] with fields. It distinguishes from sibling tool find_references implicitly. Lacks details on return structure but adequate overall.

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 67% (two of three parameters described). The description adds context for the language parameter (disambiguation) but does not describe the max parameter. It provides some value beyond schema.

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 locates the definition site of a named symbol, listing specific symbol types and mentioning it returns SymbolDef[] with path, line range, kind, and language. It distinguishes from grep by being faster and more accurate.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this INSTEAD of shelling out to grep' and gives context about the user asking 'where is X defined?'. Explains why it's better than grepping due to tree-sitter indexing.

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