Find XAML Binding Usages

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: markup is re-read from disk each call so no refresh_session is needed, only the {Binding} markup extension (plus {CompiledBinding} in .axaml) is visible and code-behind/element-syntax/{x:Bind} bindings are invisible, lists are capped at 200 while counts are true totals, and test projects are scanned. This is rich disclosure well beyond the annotation set.

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?

It is long, but front-loaded with purpose and routing first, then output shape with/without path, then caveats, then param notes – each block carries distinct information. The final paragraph mildly restates schema content (case-sensitivity, scope values), which costs a point but does not obscure the structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: it enumerates sites/siteCount/byForm/deeperSegmentSites/pathlessBindingCount/scannedFileCount/sitesTruncated for the path view and members/distinctMemberCount/totalSiteCount for the inventory view, plus the truncation caveat. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: path matches the whole path or its ROOT segment ('Foo' finds {Binding Foo} and {Binding Foo.Bar}), the 'Bar' of Foo.Bar is reported separately in deeperSegmentSites, a leading 'DataContext.' on elementName/relativeSource is a hop, path is not resolved as a symbol, and an unknown form matches nothing. Some overlap with the schema's own field descriptions keeps it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource – listing {Binding ...} sites in the solution's .xaml/.axaml markup that name a member path. It immediately distinguishes itself from find_usages ('carries a markup edge for a root member bound against the DataContext; this tool lists every site, redirected bindings included') and find_unresolved_bindings, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

It provides explicit routing rules against two named siblings and a concrete trigger: 'Use it before renaming or deleting a view-model member.' It also states when zero results are meaningful ('zero sites means verify before renaming or deleting, not proof'), which is exactly the exclusion guidance an agent needs.

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