ide_find_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value contains, or any side effects. The phrase 'using the IDE index' implies a read, but that is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the sentence is front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 tool has four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotation context. The one-sentence description is grossly inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool returns, how the coordinates work, or what constitutes a 'reference'. The description needs far more detail to be usable.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the four required parameters. While parameter names like path, line, and character are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to guess the format or interpretation.

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 'Find references using the IDE index' clearly states the action (find references) and differentiates from sibling tools like symbol search or code search by specifying 'references'. It is a specific verb+resource, though it lacks details about the scope or return format.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives such as find_symbol or search_code, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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