find_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies a read. It does not disclose search scope (single assembly vs. all loaded assemblies), whether results are capped by the limit parameter, or what the response looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to the missing context noted in other dimensions rather than being a flaw in structure itself.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to explain return values, but it does not. It also omits search scope and limit behavior. For a 4-parameter reference-search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin to fully prepare an agent to call it 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 100%, so all four parameters (assembly, type_name, member_name, limit) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal value by clarifying that the target member may be a method or field, which the schema does not state.

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) and resource (references to a method or field), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it offers no differentiation from related siblings such as search_code, pattern_scan, or inspect_type, which an agent could easily confuse for reference-finding.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_code, pattern_scan, or inspect_type, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that the assembly must be loaded). The description is purely a restatement of the operation with no routing or context.

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