find_reflection_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions return fields (items, totalCount, truncated, limit default 500, byKind summary) and sorting by file then line, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or performance implications. It implicitly suggests read-only behavior.

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 purpose, examples, and return structure. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately useful details, with no wasted 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 the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, return envelope, and sorting. It lacks usage guidelines and explicit behavioral transparency, but for a simple detection tool, it is largely adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for the two parameters (limit and symbol). The only extra is mention of default limit 500, which is already in the schema as default null but described as default 500.

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 detects dynamic/reflection-based usage, listing specific examples like Type.GetType, Activator.CreateInstance, and MethodInfo.Invoke. It also mentions the return envelope structure, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like find_references or find_attribute_usages.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools list many related search tools, but the description does not help the agent decide when to pick this one.

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