find_usages

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: semantic grouping, support for scope/kind/limit/lang filters, context_lines for surrounding code, and mode options. It also warns about cost implications for short symbols, aiding agent decision-making.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a hint. Front-loaded with the most important usage guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers all parameters sufficiently. It explains the purpose of each optional parameter and provides a usage hint. Could mention return format, but minimal gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that context_lines 'saves follow-up read_symbol calls' and that list mode is '5-10x smaller for initial discovery.' This adds practical value.

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 finds symbol references using semantic search, grouping by definitions, imports, and usages. It explicitly distinguishes itself from Grep, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use INSTEAD OF Grep for finding symbol references.' Includes a concrete hint about when Grep is preferable (for short/generic symbols), giving clear context for choosing this tool vs alternatives.

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