find_references

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the grouping/output shape, the exact/likely/possible confidence tiers with definitions, the ranking order (exact>likely>possible, non-test first), and a token cap of <=2000. It doesn't disclose pagination or what the limit parameter does, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense supporting clauses on output shape, tier semantics, ranking, and budget. No filler sentences; every clause adds 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return structure and ranking, which covers the output side well. But it omits input semantics (symbol format, limit behavior), leaving a gap for a search-style tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only implies the required 'symbol' argument. The 'limit' parameter (default 10) is never explained, and the expected symbol format (plain name vs qualified) is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: the call sites of a symbol, grouped by file with calling symbol and source line. This is clearly distinct from siblings like search_symbols or get_symbol, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use it to find where a symbol is referenced), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_symbols/get_symbol, and no prerequisites or input-format notes.

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