find_usages

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results depend on whether the graph is 'on', includes specific reference types, and excludes the definition. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies exactly what the tool computes.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences deliver a high density of information without redundancy. The key question ('who uses X') is front-loaded, and the parenthetical enumeration is compact and readable.

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 read-only tool with full parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core semantic well. It explains what uses are included/excluded but does not specify the output format. This is a minor gap given the tool's moderate complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though the phrase 'Every use of a symbol' reinforces the meaning of the symbol parameter. It does not specifically elaborate on limit or source semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('find uses of a symbol') and enumerates exactly what counts ('calls... plus textual references'), while explicitly excluding the definition. This strongly differentiates it from the sibling tool find_definition and makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 conveys a clear usage context: when you need to answer 'who uses X'. It also provides an implicit when-not by stating 'definition excluded', signaling that this tool is not for retrieving definitions. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or broader exclusion conditions.

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