find_usages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the ambiguous text-matching filter, the output format, and that it is read-only, covering behavioral traits beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses every sentence to add value: usage guidance, behavior, parameter tips, output format. No wasted words; concise yet comprehensive.

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 no output schema, description provides output structure (references array, total, ambiguous_filtered). Covers filtering behavior and parameter effects. Minor gap: required parameters are all three (symbol_id, fqn, file_path) but description implies uses for symbol or file, potentially underspecifying requirements.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for detail_level (token reduction) and include_ambiguous_text_matched (why to use it), enhancing meaning beyond schema. Minor gap: does not clarify that all three key parameters are required despite suggesting symbol or file focus.

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 all places referencing a symbol or file (imports, calls, renders, dispatches). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_call_graph' and mentions using instead of Grep, establishing a specific verb-resource pair with differentiation.

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 tells when to use this tool (instead of Grep for symbol usages) and when to use alternatives (get_call_graph for bidirectional call graph). It also explains the default filtering behavior and the parameter to override, providing clear context.

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