Find usages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add key behavior: the lookup is by exact name, and it targets reverse dependencies. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as whether the search is case-sensitive, whether it scans all files/projects, or if it includes transitive dependencies. The existence of an output schema covers return format, so this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence. It opens with a meaningful framing question and immediately follows with the technical definition. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the key matching constraint, and parameter semantics. It could add more explicit guidance on usage context (e.g., 'before changing a token or component'), but the question at the start already conveys this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has only 'entity' with no description and no schema description coverage. The description adds crucial meaning by stating the lookup is 'for a token or component' and 'by exact name', thus clarifying that 'entity' is the exact name of a token or component. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't address edge cases like not found behavior, so not 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 clearly frames the tool's purpose with the question 'What breaks if I change this?' and then defines it as a 'Reverse-dependency lookup for a token or component, by exact name.' This specifies the verb (lookup) and resource (reverse-dependencies), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_token/get_component which fetch the entity itself, and list_* tools that enumerate all.

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 description implies when to use this tool: to assess the impact of changing a token or component, by finding reverse dependencies. The phrase 'by exact name' is an explicit usage condition. However, it does not name specific alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools.

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