universal_find_references

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

The description adds substantial behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that nested roots are pruned and files deduplicated, so no match is counted twice, and that language-aware mode adds role annotations. These details are not present in the annotations and help the agent predict output. It also notes the structured output format, which is useful. No contradiction with 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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the primary action, then output format, then options, then usage guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-organized and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it covers the primary purpose, output structure, optional modes, default behaviors, and a clear use case. The schema and annotations provide the remaining parameter details and safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for 'cwd' by explaining the default (all registered roots) and deduplication behavior, and for 'language' by clarifying it adds role annotations. These enrich the schema without redundancy, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Find') and resource ('all occurrences of a symbol across a workspace'), and mentions structured output. It clearly distinguishes the tool's core function, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation. The mention of using it before refactoring provides context that helps an agent understand its role.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool before any refactoring session, which is a clear usage guideline. It also explains the default behavior when cwd is omitted, which informs the agent about scope. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, but the primary use case is well-defined.

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