find_type_arguments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses a prerequisite (load_project must be called first) and mentions that the output lists locations, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or return format (e.g., pagination). This is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 structured into clear sections (JDT uniqueness, USAGE, OUTPUT, Useful for, prerequisite). Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output (all locations), prerequisite, and use cases. However, it lacks detail on the return format (e.g., whether it includes file and line numbers). For a simple search tool, it is mostly 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema (e.g., 'Fully qualified type name' is already in the schema). The description does not elaborate on maxResults beyond its default.

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 that the tool finds all usages of a type as a generic type argument, with examples like List<Foo>. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_references by specifying the generic argument context and mentions it is JDT-UNIQUE.

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 a USAGE section indicating to provide a fully qualified type name and notes that load_project must be called first. It also lists use cases, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like find_references.

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