find_annotation_usages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states output as 'All locations where the annotation is applied' and mentions the prerequisite. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., file paths, line numbers) or error behavior (e.g., if annotation is not found). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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: three sentences plus a bulleted example list. It is front-loaded with purpose, then provides uniqueness, usage, output, examples, and prerequisite in a logical order. No superfluous words. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, input format, output summary, prerequisite, and examples. It lacks details on default pagination (maxResults default 100) and error handling, but these are minor given the examples and schema. Overall, it is mostly complete for effective use.

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 value by providing examples of fully qualified annotation names, which clarifies the required format. It also reinforces the parameter usage. Although the schema already describes typeName sufficiently, the examples make it more actionable.

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's purpose: 'Find all usages of an annotation type in the project.' It uses a specific verb+resource (find usages of annotation type) and distinguishes itself from siblings via the 'JDT-UNIQUE' note and by providing examples that show its specialization for annotations. This differentiates it from generic search tools like find_references or find_implementations.

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 guidelines: 'Provide fully qualified annotation name as typeName' and 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It implies the tool is for Java projects (JDT) and is unique compared to LSP. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over alternatives like find_references or find_implementations, which would further improve clarity.

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