Find Referencing Symbols

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the result format ('metadata about the referencing symbols as well as a short code snippet around the reference') and output structure ('Returns a list of JSON objects'). This enhances transparency about what the tool returns, which annotations don't cover.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, adds details about the result in the second, and specifies the return format in the third. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (finding symbol references), the description is complete enough: it explains the purpose, result format, and output structure. With annotations covering safety (read-only, non-destructive), 100% schema coverage for parameters, and an output schema present (implied by context signals), no additional details are necessary. The description effectively complements the structured data.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'name_path' description references 'find_symbol' tool logic). The description doesn't add significant semantic details beyond the schema, as it only mentions 'name_path' briefly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Finds references to the symbol at the given `name_path`' with specific verb ('Finds') and resource ('references to the symbol'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_symbol' by focusing on references rather than the symbol itself. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives among siblings.

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 implies usage context through parameter references (e.g., 'same logic as in the `find_symbol` tool'), suggesting it's used when you need to find where a symbol is referenced rather than the symbol definition. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_symbol' or 'search_for_pattern', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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