repo_find_references

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits — matching is literal (not semantic) and no project code is executed — but says nothing about whether results include matches in comments/strings, whether it is read-only, how results are ordered or capped relative to maxResults, or what the response looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves important gaps.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the action front-loaded and the key constraint ('without executing project code') at the end. Nothing is wasted, though the single-clause form leaves no room for the qualification that would raise it above a 4.

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?

A three-parameter read-only search with no output schema and no annotations needs the description to cover result shape and matching caveats. It covers scope and the literal-matching mode, but an agent still cannot predict what a result entry contains or whether matches in non-code text are included.

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 100%, so all three parameters (root, symbol, maxResults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion that matching is literal text across source files; it adds no format, glob, or case-sensitivity semantics beyond the schema.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Find literal references to a symbol or identifier') plus a scope ('across repository source files'), which is enough to distinguish it from general code search. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (repo_search_code, elf_list_symbols) as alternatives, so the differentiation is only implied.

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?

'Literal references' implies the textual-matching use case, and 'without executing project code' hints at a safe static-search context, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over repo_search_code or a symbol-table tool like elf_list_symbols. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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