references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important trait — the tool will signal unsupported on servers without references support, and the current HOL server does not support it — but says nothing about return format, position conventions, or error behavior beyond that single case.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key caveat up front and no filler. The parenthetical is somewhat terse/cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter positional lookup with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin — it never explains what the tool returns or how the position arguments are interpreted, leaving the agent reliant on outside LSP knowledge.

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?

Three required parameters (file, line, column) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any of them — it never clarifies that line/column denote the symbol position or whether indexing is 0- or 1-based. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 largely restates the tool name by mapping it to the LSP method 'textDocument/references', without stating the actual action (e.g. 'find all references to the symbol at the given position'). An agent unfamiliar with LSP conventions gets no explicit verb-and-resource statement, and it is not distinguished from siblings like definition or hover.

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?

It implicitly conveys usage via the LSP method name and, more usefully, warns that the tool reports unsupported when the server lacks it and that the current HOL server does not support it. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over definition, hover, or workspaceSymbol.

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