find_obsolete_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses sorting order (errors first, then by usage count, then symbol name), omission of test projects, case-insensitive project filter, and inclusion of third-party NuGet deprecations. These details provide strong behavioral transparency.

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 paragraph of about five sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding relevant details. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (grouping, sorting, multiple obsolete sources), the description covers all key behaviors. No output schema is provided, but the description explains the output structure (grouped by message and severity with counts) sufficiently for an agent to understand what to expect.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond stating that errorOnly returns error-level deprecations and the project filter is case-insensitive, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'call sites referencing [Obsolete]-marked symbols', and the grouping by deprecation message and severity. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'find_attribute_usages' by noting it is sharper for migration-planning workflows.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Sharper than find_attribute_usages for migration-planning workflows') and what to expect (includes source- and metadata-marked obsoletes, omits zero usages and test projects). It implies when not to use by contrasting with find_attribute_usages.

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