get_references

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that results include file path and line/column, and implies LSP interaction. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active LSP server) or limitations, leaving some behavioral 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence defines action and method, second describes return, third gives use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 6 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but fails to detail parameters. Completeness is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full agent autonomy.

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 has 0% description coverage for 6 parameters. The description only implicitly references file_path, line, column but does not explain language_id, position_pattern, or include_declaration. This leaves a significant gap for agent understanding.

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 'Find all references to a symbol' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_cross_repo_references and go_to_definition by focusing on LSP-based reference finding across the codebase.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'determine if a symbol is dead', 'understand call sites before refactoring', 'trace data flow'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the scenarios are clear and appropriate.

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