usageReferences

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 only states the action ('Find') without detailing output format, error handling, permissions, or side effects. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Find symbol references', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but it meets the criterion of being appropriately sized for its minimal content.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'url', 'line', and 'column' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as what 'url' refers to or how 'line' and 'column' are used, failing to 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 'Find symbol references' restates the tool name 'usageReferences' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('Find') and target ('symbol references') but lacks detail on what constitutes a 'symbol' or the scope of the search, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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