references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the AUTO-FRESH re-indexing behavior and the need for explicit reindex only for new workspaces/files. It also mentions usage counts. No contradictions.

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: two sentences plus a brief auto-fresh note. Purpose is front-loaded, all sentences carry meaning, and there is zero fluff.

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?

For a simple query tool with full schema coverage, this is quite complete. It explains the core behavior, usage counts, path requirement, and indexing behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or possible failure modes, which would be needed for a 5.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the full member path requirement for the symbol parameter and clarifying workspace_dir reindex behavior, which goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Cross-file usages of a symbol, incl. usage counts.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trace_symbol or call_chain, though 'cross-file usages' is distinct enough.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use full member path (obj.method).' and 'Prefer over grep.' It gives a practical comparison and a requirement, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name specific sibling alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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