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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns recording id, display id, name, and step index, and notes the ownership requirement (fragment owned by authenticated user). It also specifies 'live COMPONENT_REF', indicating only active references are counted. This is solid behavioral disclosure for a read-only query tool, though it doesn't mention pagination or error cases.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use-case context and return details. No redundant words. Each sentence contributes essential information, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and constraints.

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 single-parameter lookup without output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a permission constraint. It could mention behavior when no references exist or if the component is not found, but those are minor gaps. Overall, it provides enough for correct invocation.

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 componentId described as 'Component (fragment) recording ID to look up usage for'. The description adds meaningful context: it must be a fragment owned by the user, and it queries live references. This goes beyond the schema, clarifying the parameter's scope and constraints.

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 states a specific action: listing every test step referencing a component via live COMPONENT_REF. It clearly identifies the resource (test steps) and the object (component). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flow_recording_insert_component or flow_recording_detach_component by focusing on usage queries rather than mutations.

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 mentions it backs the deletion guard, implying it should be used before deleting a component to check if it is in use. This gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand its primary role.

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