references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful operational detail about 1-indexed coordinates and UTF-16 column offsets, but it does not state that the tool is read-only, does not explain the effect of include_declaration, and gives no performance or side-effect context. The coordinate notes are helpful but incomplete behavioral coverage.

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 short, front-loaded, and waste-free. The coordinate details in the second sentence are directly relevant and necessary because the schema has no parameter descriptions.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, given 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should ideally explain include_declaration and provide at least some usage positioning among siblings. It covers coordinate semantics well but leaves other important context 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds important meaning for line and column, including 1-indexing and UTF-16 offsets, but does not explain file_path or include_declaration. The compensation is partial rather than complete.

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: 'Find all usages of the symbol at a position across the workspace.' An agent can understand the core operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as callers, implementations, or definition, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like callers, implementations, or definition. The description implies the operation but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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