Find Usages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it finds call sites and import usages, which is mildly informative. However, it does not disclose how results are returned, pagination, error cases, or whether it respects project boundaries.

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 a single sentence with a helpful tag prefix ('[USAGE_ANALYSIS]'), making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, though it avoids 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 the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain return values, edge cases, or usage scenarios. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool, especially with no schema descriptions.

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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description only mentions 'symbol by name'. It provides no explanations for parameters like project_path, glob, max_results, context_lines, etc., leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 that the tool finds call sites and import usages of a symbol, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_definition, find_implementations, and find_callers. However, it does not explicitly mention the scope (e.g., project_path) or confirm that it is a code analysis tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_callers or find_implementations. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., indexing) or context for effective use.

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