find_casts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output ('All locations where casting to this type occurs') and the prerequisite (load_project). However, it does not mention side effects (none expected), performance implications, or error handling. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with sections (JDT-UNIQUE, USAGE, OUTPUT, Useful for). It avoids redundancy and front-loads the core purpose. One minor inefficiency: the OUTPUT line could be merged with the first sentence.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input requirements, output, use cases, and prerequisite. It lacks a detailed description of the return format (e.g., list of locations), but the use cases imply the nature of the output.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters (typeName, maxResults) with descriptions. The description reinforces that typeName should be fully qualified and that maxResults has a default of 100, but adds little new semantic value beyond 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 tool finds all casts to a specified type, using the verb 'find' and resource 'casts to a type'. It distinguishes itself from siblings with the 'JDT-UNIQUE' note, highlighting it is a fine-grained search 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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: 'Provide fully qualified type name' and 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It also lists useful scenarios (identifying unsafe downcasts, refactoring opportunities, understanding type conversion patterns). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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