Find references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying that it scans scenes, resources, and scripts and searches for multiple identifier forms (path, filename, UID, preload/load). This gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it omits details like performance or limitations.

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 sentence of 22 words, directly front-loaded with the key action and resource. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 5 parameters (including pagination and format options) and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality but does not explain output format behavior, pagination details, or error cases. It is functional but not thorough for a 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%, so the schema itself documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add semantic meaning or usage notes beyond what the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'resource' is a path, 'limit' max 1000) already provide. 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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'references to a given resource', and specifies the scanning domains (scenes, resources, scripts) and identifiers (path, filename, UID, preload/load). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_list_resources or godot_parse_resource.

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 for finding all usages of a resource, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., godot_list_resources for listing all resources, or godot_api_search for API references). No exclusions or context are provided.

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