Find a definition

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds that it works through LSP, which is useful dependency context. However, it doesn't clarify whether the tool returns a location, navigates the buffer, or what happens when no definition is found. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function in just 10 words, exactly what's needed for a simple LSP query tool.

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 tool is simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic operation but leaves ambiguous the return value or any cursor/buffer side effects. For a tool without an output schema, a bit more detail about the expected result or failure behavior would improve completeness, but it remains minimally viable.

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 already provides clear descriptions for all 4 parameters, including line/column being 1-based and wait_ms being an LSP timeout (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'at a position' adds little beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 action ('Find where the symbol at a position is defined') and the mechanism ('through the LSP'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nvim_references and nvim_hover by focusing specifically on definitions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to locate a definition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focused purpose makes the intended usage obvious. Sibling tool names like nvim_references and nvim_hover further clarify the distinction.

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