find_throws_declarations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates that the tool returns method signatures with throws declarations and has a prerequisite (load_project). It does not mention side effects, but the tool is read-only by nature, so 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, uniqueness, usage, output, use cases, prerequisite). It is not overly verbose, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (methods with throws declarations). It also covers the prerequisite. However, it does not detail the output format (e.g., file paths or method signatures).

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%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It restates the need for a fully qualified exception type but does not elaborate on the maxResults parameter, which is already documented 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 tool finds throws declarations of an exception type in method signatures, and it distinguishes itself from LSP-based searches with the 'JDT-UNIQUE' note. 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 (provide fully qualified exception type, requires load_project) and lists use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like find_catch_blocks.

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