find_component_usages

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

No annotations are provided, so all behavior must be disclosed. The description states 'Cache-only, no API calls' and instructs to run sync_project first, which tells the agent about side effects and data source. It doesn't mention error handling or return format, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides essential usage constraints without waste.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, cache behavior, and prerequisite. It lacks return format, but without an output schema and with a simple query tool, this is acceptable. The schema fully documents parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'parameter pass details' in the output but does not add extra meaning for the input parameters themselves, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource 'all pages and components where a given component is used', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_summary. It also mentions 'parameter pass details', giving a precise 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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite 'Run sync_project first' and the cache-only constraint, giving clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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