find_reflection_usage

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains the tool detects specific reflection methods, groups by method type, and that these usages are invisible to static searches and can break on renames. Implicitly read-only, but no explicit statement of non-destructive nature.

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?

Description is structured with usage, output, and list. Front-loaded with purpose. Minor inconsistency: usage line shows no parameters, but parameter exists, but overall concise and informative.

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?

Covers prerequisite, output format (grouped by method type), and rationale. Missing error handling for missing load_project, but output schema not required. Adequate for a single-parameter tool.

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 covers parameter 'maxResults' with description. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb (find) and resource (Java reflection API usage). It lists exact methods detected, making it highly specific and distinguishable from siblings like 'find_references'.

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?

Description clearly states prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and why to use it (reflection calls invisible to static reference searches). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is clear.

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