find_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of returned nodes. The description only states the basic purpose without revealing important operational details.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clear usage tip. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits details about the nature of returned nodes (e.g., whether they include metadata) and potential limitations, making it moderately complete for a tool with clear sibling relations.

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 50% (only limit has a description). The description adds semantics for node_id by specifying it as the referenced node, but lacks detail on its required format. The limit parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds marginal 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'nodes that REFERENCE node_id', specifying reference types (type annotations, assignments, non-call usages). It distinguishes from siblings like get_callers and get_callees, and explicitly suggests using alongside get_callers for complete impact analysis.

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 provides context by mentioning get_callers as a complementary tool, implying when to use this for non-call references. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling list and the phrase 'Use alongside get_callers' give clear guidance.

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