find_script_references

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior context beyond annotations: the substring/LIKE matching semantics, the limitation of scanning script-bearing config tables, and the inherent false-positive/miss tradeoffs. It doesn't disclose output format details, but the caveats are meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, all packed with essential information: what it scans, when to use it, and the critical matching semantics caveat. No filler, no repetition of schema content. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only dependency analysis tool with full schema coverage, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core concerns: scope of search, use case, and result interpretation pitfalls. Slightly more detail on return structure would help, but as a discovery/analysis tool the caveats matter more than output format, which the output schema absence makes the agent expect to be variable.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('Artifact name to search for' and 'Max matches per source'). The description implies the 'name' parameter via the artifact context but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage and adequate schema descriptions.

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?

Description states specific verb+resource (find what references a Script Include/named artifact) and clarifies it scans script-bearing config tables for textual use of the name. It explicitly distinguishes its use case (before renaming/deleting) from sibling tools like get_script_include or list_script_includes, which fetch content rather than analyze dependencies.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Use it before renaming or deleting a Script Include, Script Action, etc.') and provides critical caveats: substring/LIKE matching means false positives from comments/similar names and misses for dynamic references. This gives the agent clear decision criteria on when this tool is appropriate and how to interpret results.

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