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 indicates the types of references returned (calls, imports, inheritance) but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, or any potential performance implications like pagination. The behavior is typical for a reference finder, but more transparency would be beneficial.

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 with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and scope.

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 tool is simple (single parameter, no annotations), the description covers the key aspect: it finds all inbound references. With an output schema present, the need to describe return values is reduced. The description is fairly complete, though it could be slightly more explicit about the scope across different reference types.

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 single parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating that references are found for this name, but it lacks details such as required format, case sensitivity, or examples. Some compensation is provided but not complete.

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 specifies what the tool does: find all inbound references to a given name, including calls, imports, and inheritance. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_callers or find_definition by specifying the scope of references.

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 implies usage for finding inbound references but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like find_callers or impact_of. No exclusions or conditional guidance provided.

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