find_component_usages

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It covers what is searched (components, pages, hooks, services) and what is returned (files, parent items, line numbers, usage type). However, it doesn't disclose limitations, performance implications, or behavior for non-existent names.

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?

Two sentences, all information is relevant: purpose, scope, return data, use case. No redundant words or filler.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format. Tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers purpose, scope, return data, and use case, making it complete for decision-making.

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% with a good schema description. The tool description provides concrete examples of valid names (e.g., 'Button', 'useHandoffState', 'patientService'), adding helpful context beyond the schema.

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?

Description states exactly what the tool does: find where a component/hook/service is used across the codebase, including imports and renders. It specifies the returned data (files, parent items, line numbers with usage type). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_components and get_component_detail.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful for impact analysis', providing a clear use case. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of siblings and the description's specificity imply appropriate usage.

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