find_usages

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is read-only and scoped to usage occurrences, but it omits details such as pagination behavior, whether limit applies to results, or any performance/cost implications. The phrase 'fastest way' is a performance claim but unverified. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every phrase earns its place: 'actually used' clarifies scope, and the second clause gives a compelling reason to use the tool. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose but misses important contextual details: it does not mention the limit parameter, give explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_definitions, or describe what 'working examples' look like. It is minimally complete but lacks polish.

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 should compensate. It clarifies that 'name' is the identifier to find usages for, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all (e.g., maximum number of results, default behavior). The name parameter is inferable, but limit semantics are left entirely to schema defaults, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool finds where a name is used across the tree, with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_definition by focusing on usages rather than definitions, and 'across the tree' gives scope.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: 'the fastest way to get real, working examples of a pattern before writing your own' implies using this tool when you want to see existing usage examples. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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