get_di_registrations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It describes scanning behavior and return types, and that it doesn't error on non-Spring projects. However, it does not explicitly state it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, though that is implied.

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?

Description is well-structured with a purpose statement, usage format, output hint, and a bullet list of scanned items. It is front-loaded and clear, though the bullet list adds some length.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: it lists scanned annotations, handles non-Spring projects gracefully, and states a prerequisite. The return categories are mentioned, though format is not detailed.

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 the single parameter maxResults. The description does not add additional context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 as finding all dependency injection registrations, listing specific annotations and injection points. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which specifically target 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?

Explicitly notes the prerequisite of calling load_project first, and explains behavior on non-Spring projects (returns empty). While no explicit alternatives are mentioned, the context of sibling tools makes this clear.

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