find_references

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing critical behaviors: label queries require the DYNAMICSXREFDB in full server mode, bare method names over-report across all types, and label results span non-code object types. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, scoping rules, label specifics, and database requirements without redundancy. The structure front-loads the main purpose and then drills into nuanced usage.

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?

The description thoroughly covers complex behavior (target types, scoping, label results, xref requirement) even without an output schema. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the return format, but the 'limit' parameter and use-case framing make the output expectations reasonably clear.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value by giving concrete examples (e.g., 'SalesTable.initFromSalesQuotationTable') and explaining the AOT path alternative, which reinforces and extends the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find all references (where-used) to a class, method, field, table, enum, or LABEL.' It clearly lists the supported target types and positions the tool for impact analysis, distinguishing it from generic search tools like the sibling 'search'.

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?

It provides strong usage context ('Essential for impact analysis before refactoring') and detailed guidance on scoping method references to avoid over-reporting, plus label lookup requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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