find_type_arguments

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the JDT-specific nature and prerequisite but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or explain any side effects or performance implications. The description provides some context but not full transparency.

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 sections (JDT-UNIQUE, USAGE, OUTPUT, Useful for, Requires) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is reasonably concise, though the 'Useful for' list adds minor redundancy.

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 only says 'All locations where the type is used as a generic argument', lacking detail on output format (e.g., file paths, line numbers). For a search tool, more specifics about the result structure would be beneficial, but it provides the essential functionality context.

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 (typeName, maxResults). The description reiterates the need for a fully qualified type name but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 all usages of a type as a generic type argument, with examples like List<Foo>. It distinguishes itself as JDT-UNIQUE, unavailable in LSP, making the purpose 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 specifies the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first' and suggests useful scenarios like understanding generic patterns. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like find_references or find_type_instantiations, missing clear when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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