Find identifier occurrences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses the confidence-tier classification (exact, likely, name) and the side effect of automatic index building with a potentially slow first call. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response structure looks like, or any other invocation side effects. The disclosed behaviors are helpful but incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core function first, then the classification behavior, then the indexing caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 gives a solid mental model of what the tool does and how references are classified, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the return format and exact result semantics are left unspecified. It lacks guidance on result ordering, how definition sites are marked, or how confidence tiers are represented. The description is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete for a tool with five parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 description does not need to restate parameter meanings. The description adds context about indexing and confidence tiers but does not explain how individual parameters like limit, offset, or file affect behavior beyond their schema descriptions. This matches the baseline for fully covered schema parameters.

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 specifies the operation: returning occurrences of an identifier across the indexed workspace while marking definition sites. It distinguishes itself from definition-focused siblings by emphasizing references and definition marking, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools. The title reinforces the action with 'Find identifier occurrences'.

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 implies usage context: use this when you need all occurrences of an identifier in the indexed workspace, including definition sites. It provides some operational guidance by noting that a missing index is built automatically on first call, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like go_to_definition, callers, or ast_search. No when-not-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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