find_cross_repo_consumers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it separates exact uses from package-level dependencies and notes that a language server stops at its workspace, implying this tool spans workspaces. It does not disclose pagination, cursor behavior, or result shape, so the additional transparency is moderate.

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 very concise and front-loads the core purpose in the first clause. Both sentences earn their place, and there is no filler or repetition, though the elliptical noun-phrase style and lack of a verb make it slightly less polished than the strongest examples.

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?

For a tool with 10 optional parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to allow correct invocation: an agent can guess the tool's purpose but not what to pass for path, repo, stable_key, qualified_name, or response_format. It provides enough context for selection but not enough for reliable execution.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameter meaning, but it does not mention path, repo, stable_key, qualified_name, view, cursor, or any other parameter. The only hint is the word 'symbol', which could relate to qualified_name or stable_key, but no explicit mapping is given.

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 identifies the tool as finding consumers of a symbol in other repositories, and the phrase 'exact uses kept apart from package-level dependencies' distinguishes it from dependency-level queries. It lacks an explicit verb and is phrased as a noun fragment, so it does not fully meet the top bar, but the resource and scope are intelligible.

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 when to use this tool: when you need consumers beyond the current repository and want exact uses rather than package-level dependencies. However, it never names alternatives such as find_references or states explicitly when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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