Find Usages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds directional semantics and the notion that links can be 'noisy', but it never describes the shape of the response or how results are presented, which matters since there is no output schema. Some value added, but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then invocation guidance. No filler or repetition of title/name.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, directions, and workflow sufficiently to call it correctly. The main residual gap is what a returned usage record looks like, which the description leaves to inference.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining what the directions mean in prose and telling the agent to pass chunk_id from prior search results. It maps call semantics onto parameters rather than restating them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find symbol relationships: what calls this code, and what this code calls') and immediately distinguishes the two directions. An agent can tell this apart from search_code/get_chunk without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use after search_code or get_chunk') and quotes the user utterances that should trigger it ('where is this used?', 'what calls this?'). It also names the prerequisite source for the required parameter, leaving nothing to inference.

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