find_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that the tool marks external library results, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place efficiently.

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 the absence of an output schema and three required parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'marks external library results' means in practice, nor does it cover return format or error conditions. For an enhanced version of a sibling tool, more context is needed.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides necessary detail.

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 it finds references for a symbol and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'java_get_references' by noting it marks external library results. The verb 'find' and resource 'references' are specific.

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 positions this tool as an enhanced version of java_get_references, implying it should be used when external library marking is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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