Which tests exercise a symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses detection mechanisms (path conventions like *.test.* and indexed describe/it titles) and a limitation ('Textual, so same caveat as find_references'). It also reveals that only test references are surfaced, not other risk before editing. It does not mention side effects or return format, but for a search-like tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses the example to clarify intent. It contains four sentences, each adding value: purpose, actionable guidance, detection mechanism, and a caveat. It is slightly dense but not wasteful; the only minor issue is the reference to 'find_references' caveat without elaboration, which may be unclear.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the core use case well but lacks details on limit and pathPrefix, and does not describe the expected output shape. For a focused search tool, it is adequate but not fully complete, especially for a newer agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly covers the sole required 'name' parameter as 'symbol', but makes no mention of the optional 'limit' or 'pathPrefix' parameters. These parameters are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without meaning for how to use them. This is a clear gap given the low coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: it finds references to a symbol that live in test files, with the example 'if I change calculateTax, which tests catch a break'. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_references and search_symbols by focusing specifically on test files, using a clear verb ('which references ... live in TEST files') and a concrete resource (test files). The example usage makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides practical context on when to use it: 'run exactly those, not the whole suite' suggests using it to target relevant tests. It also references a sibling tool ('same caveat as find_references') implicitly acknowledging an alternative. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool beyond the textual caveat. This is clear but not fully explicit.

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