find_annotation_usages

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it is a search returning locations, but lacks details on scope (source vs. jars), side effects, or performance implications.

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?

Structured with sections (JDT-UNIQUE, USAGE, OUTPUT, Examples, requirement). Front-loaded with purpose, but slightly wordy with redundant output statement.

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 search tool with 2 params and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, and prerequisite. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., file paths, line numbers).

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% with descriptions. Description reinforces fully qualified annotation name via examples but does not clarify maxResults behavior (default 100 vs. 'All locations' in output).

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 usages of an annotation type, uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings with 'JDT-UNIQUE: This fine-grained search is not available in LSP.'

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?

Provides clear prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and examples of usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like find_references.

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