find_class_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action ('find all usages') and does not elaborate on side effects, whether a prior scan is required, performance characteristics, or what counts as a usage. The single sentence is too minimal to cover these aspects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose, making every word count.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what 'usages' means (e.g., references, includes, dependencies), what the return format is, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot predict the tool's output or side effects from the provided information.

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 the single parameter class_name, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor clarification ('C++ class') that is not explicitly in the schema, but it largely duplicates the schema description without providing additional meaning.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('find'), resource ('C++ class'), and scope ('in the project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_code (generic search) and get_class_hierarchy (hierarchy traversal) by focusing on '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?

The description implies usage when needing to locate references to a C++ class, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Since the purpose is narrow, the usage scenario is inferable, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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