find_implementations

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: zero-based coordinates, prerequisite load_project, and output format (list with locations). It adequately informs the agent of important usage details.

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 clear sections for purpose, usage, output, important notes, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, and output description. The prerequisite is noted, making it complete for a finder tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description reinforces zero-based coordinates and maxResults default, but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find implementations of an interface or extensions of a class,' specifying the verb 'find' and the resource 'implementations/extension.' It also clarifies usage on types and distinguishes from sibling tools like find_references and find_type_arguments.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Position on a type (interface or class), find all implementors/subclasses' and notes prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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