find_type_arguments

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it's a search operation ('Find all usages') and implies read-only, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or discuss performance, permissions, or rate limits. The prerequisite is useful. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive transparency for a read tool.

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 concise and well-structured, using bullet points and sections. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with unique identifier, usage, output, and use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 explains the output ('All locations where the type is used as a generic argument') and lists use cases. It covers prerequisites and context. Minor gaps: no error handling or edge cases mentioned. Still fairly complete for a specialized search 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('Fully qualified type name to find in generic arguments', 'Maximum results to return (default 100)'). The description adds minimal value by repeating 'provide fully qualified type name' and mentioning output. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Find all usages of a type as a generic type argument (List<Foo>, Map<K, Foo>).' It is specific, uses a verb+resource pattern, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_references' and 'find_type_instantiations' by highlighting its JDT-unique fine-grained search capability.

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 type name' and 'OUTPUT: All locations where the type is used as a generic argument.' It also lists useful scenarios and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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