references_of

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by distinguishing exact resolved references from low-confidence name-match references, and by implying ambiguous queries are refused until disambiguated. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 with the most important usage instruction. The second sentence adds necessary output details without redundancy. Every clause contributes useful 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with a clear output contract described in the text, the definition covers invocation timing, query format, ambiguity behavior, and output semantics. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 query parameter is already well documented, including short vs. fully qualified names and ambiguity handling. The tool description itself does not add much parameter detail, but the schema carries that burden effectively.

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 and resource: call before renaming, changing a signature, or deleting a symbol, and it returns reference data split into exact and name-match categories. This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like callers_of or definition_of.

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 opening sentence gives explicit usage context: use this tool before renaming, changing a signature, or deleting a symbol. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended scenarios are clear and actionable.

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