java_references

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'find usages', but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, potential performance costs, or whether it supports all symbol types. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it minimally adequate. A bit more structure (e.g., listing parameters briefly) would improve clarity without excessive length.

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 the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return format, whether results are ordered, or any completion status indicators. The description leaves critical gaps for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the meaning of each parameter. It mentions 'specific location' but fails to clarify line/character indexing (0-based?), the role of workspacePath, or fileUri format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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 it finds usages of a symbol at a specific location, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like java_implementations or java_definition, which also deal with symbol relationships.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as java_definition for definitions or java_hover for documentation. The description lacks any context about preferred scenarios.

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