goToDefinition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the core action and does not disclose edge-case behavior, such as how multiple definitions are returned, what happens if the symbol is not found, or whether indexing is required. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single sentence with a clear front-loaded verb. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description covers the primary purpose. It does not mention prerequisites like indexing, but the low complexity and existence of an output schema keep the baseline high.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description places both params in context: 'symbol' is the thing to resolve, 'repo' is the scope. It clarifies the roles but gives no format details (e.g., repo identifier format, symbol qualification). This partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('symbol') and outcome ('definition location(s)') within a repo. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like findReferences and documentSymbols.

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 implies usage: if you need to find a symbol's definition, you use this tool. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'use findReferences for usages'), so the guidance is only implied.

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