find_attribute_usages

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

The description describes the return envelope (items, totalCount, truncated, limit, byProject summary), adding transparency beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return format without unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete. It explains the return envelope but does not detail the structure of individual items or provide context for when to use this tool over siblings.

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% for both parameters. The description adds value with examples of attribute values (e.g., Obsolete, Authorize, Serializable) and clarifies that the 'Attribute' suffix is optional, which aids understanding.

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 all types and members decorated with a specific attribute, using a specific verb and resource. It includes examples of common attributes, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for finding attribute usages but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like find_obsolete_usage or find_references. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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