get_di_registrations

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the tool's behavior: it scans for specific annotations, returns categorized output, and handles non-Spring projects gracefully. It does not disclose performance implications but is otherwise 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 well-structured with clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, scans, notes). It is concise yet informative, with each sentence serving a purpose. No unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers the output structure, edge cases (non-Spring), and prerequisites. Without an output schema, it explains what is returned. It is complete for a focused analysis 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?

The input schema has one parameter (maxResults) with description, so coverage is 100%. The description adds value by stating the default is 200 and that it applies per annotation type, enhancing 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find all dependency injection registrations in the project.' It lists specific scanning targets (Spring annotations) and distinguishes itself from siblings like find_annotation_usages by being specifically for DI registrations.

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 includes the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first' and clarifies behavior for non-Spring projects. It could explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, but the context is clear.

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