find_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the outcome ('Returns every location where the symbol is used') but does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, does not modify anything, or require any preconditions (like an indexed project). It also lacks detail on the output format (e.g., list of file/line/col entries). This is a baseline level of transparency, enough for a simple navigation tool but not rich.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the result scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity and that the schema is well-documented, the description is mostly adequate but leaves some ambiguity. It does not explicitly state whether the definition of the symbol is included among the references, which can affect interpretation. It also does not describe the return format (e.g., array of objects) or any ordering, though no output schema exists. For a find-references tool, this level of detail is minimal but not fully complete.

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%: each parameter (file, line, col) has a clear description in the JSON schema. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameters, such as how they locate the symbol or whether the position refers to a definition or usage. Since the schema already documents them, a 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to repeat what is in 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 clearly states the operation: 'Find all references to a symbol across the project' and further specifies the scope with 'Returns every location where the symbol is used.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings like goto_definition or goto_implementation by focusing on references at all usage sites, not just a single definition or implementation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative navigation tools like goto_definition, goto_type_definition, or call_hierarchy_incoming. It mentions 'across the project' which implies project-wide search, but it does not state conditions such as 'use this when you need all usages, not just the definition' or reference any sibling tools. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose.

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