Find XAML Resource Usages

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: it reads current files on disk with bin/obj/.vs excluded, is never stale so no refresh_session is needed, works on recalled sessions, only handles string keys (not {x:Type ...}), ignores XML-commented markup, and caps lists at 200. The 'code' kind caveat (a matching literal is not proof of a lookup) is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the key-vs-audit branching, and nearly every sentence carries real information. It is a dense wall of text, though, and the C# string-literal caveat is restated in the fan-in paragraph after already being introduced in the reference-kind sentence, which costs some clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it describes definitions as x:Key file:line, references as file:line + kind ('static'/'dynamic'/'code'), same-file duplicate definitions, and the 200-item list cap. Combined with the stated blind spots, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 key (case-sensitive exact match, omit for audit view), scope (solution vs view-path substring, references still counted solution-wide), and sessionId. The description reinforces the key/no-key split but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (find resource-key fan-in across XAML/AXAML markup and C# sources) and explicitly positions itself against the sibling capability ('the question the C# symbol graph cannot answer because resources are wired by string key, not by symbol'). An agent can distinguish it from find_usages and find_binding_usages 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use branching: with a key -> definition/reference lookup; without a key -> audit view of never-referenced keys and same-file collisions. It also states when the tool is insufficient (runtime-assembled keys, non-.cs source files, third-party dll templates) and what a zero-reference result actually means ('verify before deleting', not proof).

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