get_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the tool reads fileContent from memory, requires a project, or works cross-file. The schema's projectPath description mentions disk reads, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action, scope, and context ('at the cursor'). Every word earns its place, and it is immediately understandable.

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 tool is a standard code navigation feature, and the schema is detailed, but the description omits important context such as how references are computed (in-memory vs disk), what counts as a reference, and what happens when projectPath is not set. Given no output schema or annotations, the description could be richer.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for all parameters, including the optional projectPath's role.

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: 'Get all reference locations of the symbol at the cursor'. The parenthetical '(Find References)' reinforces the IDE feature name, and this distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like get_definition and get_type_definition.

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 usage is implied by the name and the mention of 'at the cursor', but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over alternatives like get_definition or get_quick_info. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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