pursIdeUsages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively indicates this is a read-only analysis tool ('Find everywhere... is used') and adds useful context about prerequisites and refactoring workflow. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or performance characteristics that would enhance 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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality, listing prerequisites, and providing usage guidance. There's no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose immediately clear.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well in covering purpose, prerequisites, and usage context. It could be more complete by describing the return format or what constitutes a 'usage' result, but given the schema's thorough parameter documentation and the clear behavioral context provided, it's 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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score. It doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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') and resource ('usages of a specific function, type, or value across the project'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getFunctionNames' or 'getTopLevelDeclarations' by focusing on cross-project usage analysis rather than listing or querying definitions.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Essential for refactoring - shows impact of changes') and when to invoke it ('If you plan to refactor, get usages before refactoring'). It also mentions prerequisites ('IDE server running and modules loaded'), offering clear context for proper usage.

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