find_type_instantiations

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (load_project), the unique JDT aspect, and the output type. It does not cover performance or limitations but is sufficiently transparent for a search 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?

Structured with purpose, notes, usage, output, bullet points, and prerequisite. Front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more concise but is well-organized and easy to scan.

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?

Covers what the tool does, how to use it, prerequisites, and examples of usefulness. Without an output schema, the description adequately explains what to expect. Missing details output format or pagination but overall complete for a 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% for 2 parameters. The description adds context: 'Fully qualified type name' for typeName (matching schema) and mentions default 100 for maxResults, adding value beyond 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 'Find all instantiations of a type (new Foo() calls).' This specifies the verb (find) and the resource (instantiations via 'new'), differentiating it from siblings like find_references or find_type_arguments.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Provide fully qualified type name', 'Requires load_project to be called first.', and notes uniqueness ('This fine-grained search is not available in LSP.'). It gives context but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use.

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