find_any_usages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the search patterns and grouping, but it omits other behavioral traits such as requiring a loaded project, output structure details beyond grouping, or potential heuristic false positives. More transparency would be helpful.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that includes all key information with no unnecessary words. The structured list of `any` patterns is efficient and highly scannable.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the purpose, patterns, and grouping. There is no output schema, so a richer return format description would be ideal, but 'Grouped by file' provides a baseline. The schema fills in the parameter details, making it adequately complete.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already explains `name` and `max_results`. The description adds context about grouping by file, which relates to max_results, but no additional parameter semantics are needed. Baseline 3 applies.

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 `any` usages in a project, enumerates the exact patterns (`: any`, `as any`, `<any>`, params/returns), and indicates results are grouped by file. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_unsafe_type_casts or find_ts_ignores.

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 use for type-debt analysis but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude cases. The context is clear enough, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools like find_ts_ignores or find_unsafe_type_casts.

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