reverse_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that the tool performs both graph lookups and ad-hoc scans of imports/requires/type-usages, returns two labeled buckets, and also reports feature/workflow references. It even notes it works when the graph is incomplete, giving a thorough behavioral picture.

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (two buckets) and additional feature/workflow references. For a single-parameter lookup tool, this is complete and self-contained.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of filePath (relative path, with example). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema contains, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb ('find') and resource ('cross-project references to a file'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining its dual strategy (Knowledge Graph + content scanning) and its specific output buckets. This makes the tool's unique role evident.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before editing a file to understand its full blast radius, even when the graph is incomplete,' providing a clear scenario and a key advantage. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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