find_field_writes

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: zero-based coordinates, dependency on 'load_project', and that it returns only modification locations. It does not cover potential side effects or output format, but for a query tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It is structured into clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT) and front-loads the key information. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, prerequisites, and differentiation from siblings. It could add details about the output format or error handling, but it is sufficient for an experienced developer to use correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the zero-based coordinate system, which informs usage of line and column parameters, and provides context that the tool finds write accesses. This surpasses the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'find' and resource 'write accesses (mutations) to a field', and explicitly distinguishes from 'find_references' which returns all usages. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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: position cursor on a field declaration or reference, note that coordinates are zero-based, and that 'load_project' must be called first. It also contrasts with 'find_references' to guide when to use this tool instead.

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