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. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about whether the declaration itself is included, whether results span languages/workspaces, or how results are shaped or bounded. For a graph/reference tool in a repo of unknown size, these omissions matter.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain return shape and scope. It covers neither, so an agent cannot predict whether it gets file:line entries, symbol objects, or whether declarations and dynamic references 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 coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the argument is an identifier/name and that the scope is repo-wide, which adds some meaning, but it gives no syntax guidance (fully qualified name? case sensitivity? language prefix?).

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?

Clear specific verb and resource: 'List every call site / identifier use of a name across the repo.' The phrase 'every call site / identifier use' signals it is broader than callers alone, but the description never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings find_callers and search_symbols, leaving meaningful overlap for an agent to resolve.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus find_callers, search_symbols, or impact_analysis. The overlap with find_callers is especially risky since 'call site' is exactly what a callers tool returns, and nothing clarifies when a repo-wide reference sweep is the right choice.

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