get_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return content (definition location, file range, body) and symbol types. However, it does not mention limitations (e.g., language support, indexing requirements, or behavior for overloaded symbols). Despite this, it provides solid behavioral context.

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 no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and includes all essential information efficiently.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, return content, and symbol types. It could be improved by noting that it finds the primary definition (not overloads) or handling of multiple matches, but it sufficiently informs an agent for basic usage.

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 single parameter 'query' has schema coverage 100%, with a schema description. The tool description adds the nuance 'exact or partial' name, which clarifies matching behavior, and lists symbol types to guide input. This adds value 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 retrieves definition location, file range, and body of a symbol, listing supported symbol types (function, class, struct, trait, module). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_references (finds references) and get_callers/callees (call relationships).

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 for finding definitions but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_implementations, get_symbol_context, or explain_symbol. With 44 sibling tools, explicit when/when-not scenarios would be beneficial.

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