find_annotation_usages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the operation as a 'fine-grained search' and implies it is read-only but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or discuss other behavioral traits like performance or side effects. The prerequisite is mentioned, adding some context.

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 concise with a clear structure: main action, uniqueness note, usage instruction, output, examples, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains input, output, and prerequisite. It could mention result format or pagination, but the given information is sufficient for agent usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides examples that illustrate usage but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The maxResults default is already in the schema.

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 action 'Find all usages of an annotation type' and specifies the resource (annotation type). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is JDT-UNIQUE and not available in LSP, making the purpose specific and distinguishable.

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 provides clear usage instructions: provide fully qualified annotation name, gives examples, and states the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the examples and uniqueness hint help.

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