references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return grouping (by file, with line numbers and enclosing symbol), the pagination contract (true total, count shown, next offset), and the accepted kind categories. It omits permission/auth considerations, but for a read-only style query that is minor.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the scoping rule and pagination behavior. Every sentence adds information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described, yet the description spends most of its length on return shape while leaving limit and exclude_tests unexplained. For a 6-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, coverage is partial.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains path's scoping effect, enumerates kind values (call | new | arg | ref | import), and clarifies offset's continuation role, but name, limit, and exclude_tests are left undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it locates every place a name is used, grouped by file with line numbers and enclosing symbol. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like symbol or find_symbols, though the differentiation from them is left implicit.

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?

It explains one usage nuance -- that supplying path (or a qualified name) pins a single definition so only matching references are listed -- which implies when to use the filtered mode. However, it never states when to reach for this tool over alternatives like symbol, dependencies, or relationships.

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