get_di_registrations

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It details what the tool scans for, confirms it does not error on non-Spring projects, and mentions the prerequisite. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, but that is implied. Good coverage for a read-only scanning 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 well-structured with USAGE, OUTPUT, and bullet lists. It is relatively concise, though the USAGE line is redundant given the function name. Every sentence adds value without excessive verbosity.

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 provides good detail on output categories and edge cases (non-Spring projects). It covers prerequisites and parameter. Slightly more context on performance or result size could improve completeness, but it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters (one optional maxResults with description). The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, and the USAGE line ('get_di_registrations()') implies no parameters, which is mildly inconsistent. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 finds all dependency injection registrations, listing specific annotations (e.g., @Component, @Service) and contexts (Spring, Beans, Injection points). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_annotation_usages and get_dependency_graph by focusing on DI registrations, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and explains behavior for non-Spring projects (returns empty categories). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives, but the context provided is sufficient for an agent to understand appropriate usage.

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