Get symbol references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the heuristic nature of the tool ('Heuristic'), what kinds of usages are found, and that line numbers are included. It does not discuss error behavior or potential omissions, but the key behavioral traits are stated.

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?

Three sentences, all informative and non-redundant. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a crisp alternative and a useful tip. No filler or repetition of parameter details from the schema.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does enough: it states what is returned semantically and how to use the tool. It could specify the exact return format, but for a simple two-parameter lookup the coverage is adequate.

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?

Input schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by advising to use the file parameter for narrowing common names, which is practical guidance beyond the schema. This lifts it one point above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: finds where a symbol is used, enumerating JSX component usages, call sites with line numbers, and named imports. It explicitly contrasts with grep, and the concrete output list implicitly differentiates it from siblings like get_deps or find_symbol, so an agent will not mistake its purpose.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative (grep) and says to use this tool instead, plus a practical tip to narrow with file for common names. However, it does not mention when to prefer or avoid sibling tools like find_symbol or get_deps, so the usage guidance is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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