universal_find_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output structure (file, line, column, context), optional mode behavior, and role annotations such as declaration, import, or usage. While it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or mention limits, the 'find' semantics and output-focused description make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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 short sentences cover action, output, optional mode, and usage context without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

For a tool without an output schema, the description adequately conveys the shape of results and the workflow context. It could be more explicit about edge cases such as no matches, result limits, or behavior with non-source files, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the language parameter produces role annotations and by describing the output context, going beyond the schema's terse 'role detection' phrasing. It does not need to restate parameters already well documented in the schema.

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 action ('Find all occurrences of a symbol across a workspace') with a clear resource and scope. It further distinguishes itself from likely alternatives like run_command_grep by emphasizing structured output and optional language-aware role annotations.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use this tool BEFORE any refactoring session to understand what will break when a symbol is renamed or moved.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the placement in the refactoring workflow is clear.

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