oss_lsp_references

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: line/column are 1-based, and results are persisted as L1 evidence. It says nothing about whether the index must be built, whether results are truncated or ranked, or the failure mode for an unknown symbol, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The evidence-recording note is a fragment but still 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 four-required-parameter positional query with no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe what is returned (locations list, file/line/column shape) and the prerequisite repository/index state. It omits both, leaving an agent unable to predict the response.

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% across all four required parameters. The description only clarifies that line and column are 1-based; it never explains what path means (file containing the symbol) or what project_id selects, so most parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: retrieving all reference locations of a symbol via LSP, at a given position. It distinguishes the operation from siblings in principle (references vs. definition), but never names oss_lsp_definition or oss_lsp_call_hierarchy as the alternative, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus oss_lsp_definition or oss_lsp_call_hierarchy, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that a repository must be opened and indexed first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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