dependency_impact

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying mechanism (ripgrep for candidates, tree-sitter AST for classification) and classifies usage types (call/import/definition/type_reference). This is substantive and goes beyond a simple 'find usages', though it does not mention side effects or performance caveats.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, params, and returns. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value—no filler. The front-loaded purpose sentence ensures immediate comprehension. A 5 would require even tighter phrasing without losing the useful details.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is highly complete: it explains the input parameters, the return structure, the use case, and the filesystem-based requirement. It lacks only minor edge-case details (e.g., error handling, behavior with no matches), but overall it equips the agent well for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It does so excellently with an Args section that explains each parameter including optional behavior (file_glob, whole_word default, max_results cap). The return structure is also documented, providing far more meaning than the schema's property titles alone.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Find everywhere a symbol is used in a checked-out repo (the blast radius).' It further explains the value for code review, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like code_search or trace_call_chain.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance ('before you approve a change... see who depends on it') and an explicit when-not ('point it at a LOCAL clone... not the MR URL'). However, it does not directly compare to alternative sibling tools, or say when another tool would be more appropriate, so it stops short of a 5.

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