get_occurrences

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 that roles 'must be "reference" or "definition"' and returns a 'Dict containing all occurrences,' but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or how results are structured beyond 'Dict.' For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's goal, the next two explain parameters, and the last specifies the return type. There's no wasted text.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and the return type. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error handling. The presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true') mitigates the need to detail return values, but overall completeness is only 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'usr' as 'The USR (Unified Symbol Resolution) of the symbol' and 'roles' as 'The roles to search for (must be "reference" or "definition").' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., USR string format) or array handling for roles.

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: 'Get all occurrences of a symbol by its USR.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('occurrences of a symbol'), and key identifier ('USR'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'symbol_occurrences' which likely has overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_pattern' and 'symbol_occurrences' available, there's no indication of scenarios where this tool is preferred or should be avoided, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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