Find usages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the lookup is semantic and language-aware rather than textual, but it says nothing about result capping (the default limit of 200), truncation behavior, or what happens when the position is not on a symbol.

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 sentence with the resource and the key differentiator front-loaded, and no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs to pick and call the tool correctly.

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 output schema, the description should hint at what a 'reference' result looks like, and it does not (no mention of file/line pairs or result shape). Still, for a read-only lookup with a well-described position triple and a capped limit, it is nearly sufficient — the missing piece is result-format and truncation guidance.

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 60%: path, column, and project are documented in the schema, while line and limit are not. The description's 'path:line:column' notation clarifies how the position triple is interpreted as pointing at a symbol, but it never mentions limit or what happens when results exceed it, leaving one of five parameters unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb ('find every reference'), the precise resource (the symbol at path:line:column), and the mechanism (IDE semantic index). It also explicitly negates the closest alternative interpretation ('not text search'), so an agent can distinguish it from ide_find_files and a generic grep.

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 'semantic index, Kotlin and Java aware, not text search' clause gives a clear condition for selecting this tool over a text/file search. However, no sibling tool is named (e.g., ide_find_files) and there are no stated exclusions such as 'use ide_rename instead if you intend to modify references'.

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