find_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, performance implications, or any safety considerations. The description only covers basic functionality without behavioral context.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the parameter options. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It provides enough context for a straightforward reference-finding tool, though it lacks prerequisites or error handling details.

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 description adds meaning to the 'direction' parameter by explaining the three options: 'dependents' (who uses this), 'dependencies' (what this uses), 'both'. This goes beyond the schema, which only defines type and default. The 'asset_path' is implicitly described as 'the given asset'.

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 states 'Find assets that reference or are referenced by the given asset,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_assets' (general search) and 'list_assets' (listing all assets) by focusing on reference relationships.

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 explains the 'direction' parameter options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'find_assets' or 'get_asset_info'. It implies usage for dependency analysis but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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