find_references

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses type-checked behavior, homonym handling, the meaning of an empty result, ambiguity resolution, and the 'view: files' behavior. This is rich behavioral context that materially changes how an agent interprets results.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral distinction, usage shortcut, and a view variant. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the minimal invocation path well and explains key result semantics, but with 15 optional parameters and no output schema it leaves advanced usage undocumented. There is no mention of pagination via cursor/limit, language or repo scoping, or what the default response shape is. It is adequate for basic calls but not fully complete given the parameter surface.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains two parameters: the bare 'name' usage and 'view: files'. The remaining 13 parameters—path, repo, limit, cursor, language, direction, confidence, edge_kinds, repository, stable_key, qualified_name, include_derived, response_format—receive no semantic explanation.

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 opening line, 'Who calls or references a symbol,' states a clear verb and resource. The description goes further by contrasting with grep and explaining type-checked semantics, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like find_symbol or trace_dependencies.

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 gives practical usage context: a bare name suffices, ambiguous names return candidates, and an empty answer means nobody calls it. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative sibling tool, so exclusions are missing.

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