find_ast_usages

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a valuable filtering behavior: "Filters out string literals, comments, and non-call occurrences." However, it does not mention whether indexing is required, how missing symbols are handled, or any result behavior beyond being AST-based.

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 a single focused sentence that communicates the mechanism, target resource, and exclusion behavior without redundancy. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

The tool is simple enough that the core lookup behavior is adequately described, and an output schema exists. The main gaps are the lack of usage guidance around semantic_search/index_workspace and the absence of practical details about scoping and limit behavior, which leaves the description merely adequate rather than 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning for symbol_name by stating it refers to "a function or class," but it gives no guidance on directory_path or limit, such as how the directory is searched or what the limit controls. This leaves non-obvious semantics undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb plus precise resource: "AST-based lookup of real call sites / instantiations of a function or class." It also clarifies what is excluded, which distinguishes it from string or semantic search. This is far more informative than the bare tool name.

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 AST-based wording implicitly indicates this is for exact code-structure matching rather than fuzzy search, and the sibling tools suggest a semantic-search alternative. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus semantic_search or index_workspace, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions.

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