find_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using ripgrep and returning file/line/text, but does not disclose behavior like performance, .gitignore handling, or safety (read-only is implied but not explicit). With annotations absent, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, each sentence earns its place: first defines action and method, second provides usage context. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 mentions 'Returns file, line, and matching text', covering the return format. It also gives a use case. Missing details like result truncation (maxResults) are minor; overall sufficient for a simple search tool with 4 parameters.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates 'symbol' and 'path' but does not elaborate on format or constraints. Falls into the typical 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 'Find all references to a symbol across a directory using ripgrep', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_exports (exports) and file_outline (structure), leaving no ambiguity about what finds_references does.

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?

Includes explicit guidance: 'Use to trace call chains and understand usage before modifying', indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, so a slight deduction applies.

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