find_all_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 behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits like 'deterministic' and 'AST traversal', and enumerates exactly what is returned. Still, it does not disclose scope boundaries (e.g., whether generated or dependency files are included), performance characteristics, or how optional workspaceRoot and entryFile affect the traversal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the method, result scope, and result categories without any wasted words. It is concise yet information-dense, and every phrase earns its place.

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 gives a solid overview of what the tool returns, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, it omits how the optional parameters alter behavior, whether a workspace root must be set in advance, and any limitations of the traversal. The presence of set_workspace_root as a sibling makes this missing relationship noticeable, so the definition is not fully complete.

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 provides parameter-level documentation. The description reinforces that matching is exact, which aligns with the schema's 'Exact name' for symbolName, but it adds no new meaning about entryFile or workspaceRoot and how they scope the codebase-wide search. This is a baseline score given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Performs deterministic AST traversal') and a concrete deliverable ('every exact reference, import, definition, and call-site across the codebase'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependency_graph, which returns a graph, and rename_symbol, which mutates. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does at a glance.

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 intended use is strongly implied: call this when you need all usages of a symbol. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_dependency_graph or rename_symbol, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or mention prerequisites such as setting a workspace root. It offers only implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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