Find constants xref

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: bounded-candidates output, cost=medium, the active-client prerequisite, and a failure-path pointer to tool-schema. That is genuine added value over the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a compact key=value spec block. Dense but every line carries signal (phase, cost, prerequisite, failure path). The inline signature duplicates the schema slightly, which is the only minor 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?

With no output schema, the description does explain what is produced (bounded-candidates, compact xrefs) and covers prerequisites and failure handling. For a read-only search tool this is close to complete, though it does not describe result shape or how ranking/bounding works in practice.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents limit and threadContext semantics. The description only restates the signature with optionality markers, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource+scope: find getgc functions containing a target constant, returning compact xrefs. It is distinguishable from narrower siblings like get-closure-constants or find-functions-by-constant via the 'getgc' scope, though it never names an alternative to route between them.

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?

'Phase: observe; cost=medium; Requires: active-client' implies when this tool fits operationally, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of the closest alternatives (find-functions-by-constant, find-upvalue-xref, get-closure-constants). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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