mcquest_find_usages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly adds READ ONLY and the important behavior of word-boundary matching, which materially affects results. But it leaves key behaviors undisclosed: case sensitivity, ordering, behavior at max_results, and whether file_pattern expects a glob or regex.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: the read-only status first, the core action second, the output shape and use case third. Every sentence earns its place and the description is under 40 words.

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 core purpose, output format, and a key matching behavior are present, and an output schema exists to cover return values. Still, with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the tool description should also clarify the default scope of frontend/src, file_pattern semantics, and max_results cutoff behavior; those gaps prevent agents from tuning the four parameters confidently.

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 0%, so each parameter relies on the description to compensate. Only the symbol parameter gains semantics (references found via word-boundary matching); path, max_results, and file_pattern get no explanation of their interpretation or interplay, leaving the agent to guess at meaningful values.

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 verb and resource ('Find references to a symbol across MCQuest source files'), a matching mechanism (word-boundary matching), and a concrete return shape (file:line:line-content). This differentiates it from nearby siblings such as mcquest_find_imports, so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

'Use for discovering where a component, function, or variable is used' gives a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not name exclusions or point to alternatives — for example, it never explains when to prefer mcquest_search or mcquest_find_imports instead — so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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