lsp_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is reliable across files and states the return format (file URI, line, column). However, it does not mention error cases, prerequisites (e.g., file must be open), or any side effects, which for a read-like operation is a minor gap but still leaves some uncertainty.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The analogy and confidence note are efficient and add value without bloat. The sentence order is logical, moving from action to analogy to output to confidence.

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 tool, the description covers the core action and output, but it omits parameter semantics and any caveats about LSP state (e.g., need for initialization). Given the tool has an output schema, return format is partly handled, but the missing parameter explanation leaves a notable gap for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what file_path, line, and character represent. It implies they are coordinates by mentioning return line/column, but never states that these parameters specify the symbol's location. An agent must infer their meaning from context, which is insufficient given no schema descriptions.

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 verb 'jump to' and resource 'definition', and adds the analogy 'Like pressing F12 in an IDE' which makes the intent unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like lsp_references, but the definition vs references distinction is implicit and clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 when to use it (when you need a definition) via the F12 analogy, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like lsp_references or lsp_hover. It leaves the selection to inference, which is adequate but not proactive.

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