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. 'Find symbol references' implies a read-only search operation, but it does not specify behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of detail 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 at three words, with no wasted verbiage. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimal.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any dependencies. For a tool that likely interacts with code or documents to find references, this lack of context makes it insufficient for effective use by an agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with parameters 'url', 'line', and 'column' entirely undocumented. The description 'Find symbol references' adds no meaning to these parameters—it does not explain what the 'url' refers to (e.g., a file, document, or code location), or how 'line' and 'column' are used (e.g., for precision in symbol location). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'usageReferences'. It provides a vague purpose without specifying what kind of symbols, what context (e.g., codebase, document), or what 'references' means (e.g., usages, definitions, calls). While it indicates a search/find operation, it lacks the specificity needed 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject' that might serve similar purposes. Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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