Angular: find usages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states what the tool searches for and that it accepts a file path or selector, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, whether it follows workspace boundaries, or any performance or permission implications. For a search tool, the lack of a clear read-only guarantee or output format disclosure is a notable gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function before listing supported types and input formats. Every clause adds useful information, with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 effectively covers the tool's purpose and input format, which is essential. However, because there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain what a usage result looks like (e.g., file locations, line numbers, snippets). This information is absent, leaving the agent to guess the return structure. The presence of configurable parameters like limit and input adds behavioral nuance not explained in the description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a high-level summary ('Accepts a file path or a selector') that mirrors selectorOrFile's schema description. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the score stays at the baseline.

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: finding usages of components, directives, pipes, or services across the workspace. It names specific resource types and explicitly mentions the two input forms (file path or selector), making both the action and scope unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that address other Angular concerns.

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 the intended use — when you need to locate usages of a symbol — and states the accepted input formats. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like ng_component_info or ng_template_definition, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no alternative guidance beyond the obvious purpose.

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