find_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return values (file paths, line numbers, caller names, code snippets) but does not mention performance, limitations, or whether it modifies state. It describes a read operation adequately but not richly.

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 two sentences, fully front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return values adequately. It explains what is returned (file paths, line numbers, caller names, code snippets). However, it could mention that results are from the entire workspace, which is implied by 'workspace'. Overall complete for a simple search tool.

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%, and the parameter 'symbolName' is described in the schema as 'The name of the symbol to find usages of.' The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond this, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for references to a symbol and distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_definitions' (definitions) and 'get_call_graph' (call graph). The verb 'searches' and resource 'workspace for references' are specific.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use when you need references, but does not contrast with siblings like 'find_definitions' or 'semantic_query'. Users must infer context from sibling names.

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