find_references

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It mentions resolving declaration, returning all refs in one call, and capping output at file:line. Does not disclose error handling, performance implications, or limitations (e.g., on large projects). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, packed with information but front-loaded. The first sentence is dense with multiple ideas; could be split for clarity. Nonetheless, no wasted words and all content is relevant.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and provides a usage hint. However, it omits details on many parameters and does not fully explain return format beyond 'capped file:line'. Incomplete for a complex 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 description coverage is 64%. The description adds meaning for 'symbol' (resolved via index) and 'detail'/'direction' (purpose). But several parameters (includeDeclaration, depth, projectPath, etc.) are not explained in the description, relying on schema. Baseline 3, with modest added value.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds semantic call sites of a symbol, distinguishing from grep. Mentions alternative modes (blast-radius, call hierarchy). However, does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_symbol' or 'goto_definition', leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Provides a clear usage recommendation ('Use before changing a function') and explains alternative modes (detail, direction). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings, but the given context is helpful.

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