nexus_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the scope (reference sites and their types) but does not disclose output format, performance characteristics, or any limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that tells the agent exactly what the tool does without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly defines the inputs and the conceptual output (reference sites), though it could optionally clarify the return format (e.g., file paths and line numbers). Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'symbol' with type string and explanation 'Symbol name or qualname', giving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all reference sites of a symbol.' It also enumerates the kinds of references (calls, imports, type annotations), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexus_search or nexus_find_symbols.

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 phrase 'all reference sites of a symbol' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the explicit mention of calls, imports, and type annotations helps the agent decide it is the right tool for reference discovery. However, there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tools mentioned.

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