find_type_instantiations

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It states output is 'all locations where the type is instantiated' and mentions load_project requirement, but lacks details on output format (e.g., line numbers, file paths) and performance implications.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured with a clear first sentence, separate sections for unique value, usage, output, and use cases. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, preconditions, and use cases adequately. However, it could mention output format to be more 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 description coverage is 100%, so description adds only marginal value by emphasizing the fully qualified type name format. No extra semantics for maxResults beyond the 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 explicitly states it finds all instantiations of a type via 'new' calls. It includes a JDT-UNIQUE note distinguishing it from LSP searches, and the use cases differentiate it from broader sibling tools like find_references.

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?

Clear usage instructions: provide fully qualified type name and require load_project first. Lists useful scenarios but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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