find_throws_declarations

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 search scope (throws declarations in method signatures only), input format, and prerequisite. It also notes the JDT-UNIQUE nature. Could be more comprehensive (e.g., case sensitivity, subclass handling), but overall informative.

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: purpose, uniqueness note, usage format, output, use cases, prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff. Size is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, use cases, and prerequisite. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it. Minor omission: output format details (e.g., whether fully qualified method names are returned). Still, it is reasonably complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the schema for typeName but adds no new meaning. For maxResults, no additional semantics are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 'throws declarations of an exception type in method signatures.' It specifies input (fully qualified exception type) and output (list of methods). The JDT-UNIQUE note distinguishes it from LSP-based siblings, and no sibling tool duplicates this focused search.

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 provides explicit usage instructions ('Provide fully qualified exception type name'), lists use cases, and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives, though the JDT-UNIQUE note implies its unique value.

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