Find call sites of a function

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses heuristic matching, the exact/likely/name confidence logic, that same-named methods are mixed, and that index creation happens automatically.

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?

Four dense sentences, each with a distinct job: core behavior, return fields and confidence, caveat about mixed methods, and filter/index behavior. The most important trait is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, it describes what each hit contains and how confidence is determined, covering the essential return semantics. It could clarify how resolved_to appears in results or provide an example, but overall it is quite complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description re-states file/language filtering and adds the resolved_to guidance, though resolved_to is not an input parameter, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: finds call sites of a function by name in the indexed workspace. It also distinguishes itself by describing the heuristic nature, confidence tiers, and the mixing of same-named methods, making it clearly different from precise reference tools.

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 context: use for name-based/heuristic call discovery, and filter by resolved_to when a precise call graph is needed. It also removes an index prerequisite by noting that the index is built automatically if missing, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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