get_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic behavior but omits important details such as whether the LSP server must be running, potential latency, response format, or behavior when no references are found.

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 highly concise: one sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 complexity of a reference-finding tool and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the result contains (e.g., locations in files), how to interpret the output, or any constraints (e.g., only works for programming languages with LSP support).

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds no additional context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., that file is an absolute path and line/col are 1-indexed). Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action (find all references), the target (a symbol at a given position), and the mechanism (via LSP). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like goto_definition or hover, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., when to use workspace_symbols for broader searches). There is no mention of prerequisites like the LSP server needing to be active, which is critical for usage.

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