find_implementations

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: it uses zero-based coordinates and outputs a list with locations. However, it does not mention behavior for large result sets, recursion depth, or error scenarios (e.g., invalid position).

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 with a clear structure: purpose, usage, output, important note, 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?

The description covers prerequisite, coordinate system, and output format, which is adequate for a read-only tool. It could mention the default for maxResults (100) and error handling, but overall it is fairly complete.

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%, so the parameter descriptions are already clear. The description adds value by emphasizing zero-based coordinates and mentioning the output format, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the 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's function: 'Find implementations of an interface or extensions of a class.' It specifies the resource type (interface/class) and uses a specific verb ('find'), distinguishing it from siblings like find_references which cover broader references.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and a usage note ('Position on a type'), but does not explicitly discuss when to avoid using this tool or compare it to alternatives like find_method_references or get_type_hierarchy.

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