find_script_references

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the substring/LIKE search nature, warns about false positives from comments/similar names, and notes misses for dynamic references. This gives agents important expectations about result reliability and interpretation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity, strong annotations (readOnlyHint), and complete schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to interpret results, and its limitations. No output schema is needed for a search/reference tool, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description reinforces the meaning of 'name' with an example but does not add significant additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('references to a Script Include or named artifact'), and specifies the scanning mechanism ('script-bearing config tables for textual use of the name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_field_references or find_artifact by focusing on script includes and named artifacts.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it before renaming or deleting a Script Include, Script Action, etc.' It also explains the substring matching behavior and caveats (false positives, dynamic reference misses), but does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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