roslyn:find_reflection_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a detector/reader of reflection usage, outputting a list of calls. It does not mention side effects, destructiveness, or permissions. While likely a safe read, the lack of explicit non-destructive statement and absence of any behavioral nuance (e.g., rate limits) keeps this adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise yet complete. It front-loads the core action, then provides usage examples, output description, and use cases in a well-structured format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 purpose, usage, and output format despite lacking an output schema. It gives clear use cases. However, it omits potential limitations (e.g., can it detect all reflection? performance implications?) and does not specify error conditions. Still, it provides sufficient context for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions ('Filter to specific project', 'Maximum results (default: 100)'). The description provides usage examples showing both parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it 'Detect dynamic/reflection-based type and method usage that is invisible to static reference searches', which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates itself from static search tools like find_references. Usage examples and output format further clarify its purpose.

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 'Use for:' section listing contexts like refactoring, security audits, and understanding dynamic behavior. It implies it is complementary to static searches but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it. Still, the guidance is clear and context-rich.

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