rails_lens_find_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., how results are returned or limitations). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's lack of additional context is adequate but not excellent.

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 (a single phrase). While it is front-loaded and has no unnecessary words, it is almost too terse, sacrificing informativeness for brevity. A slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 tool has three parameters, one required, and an output schema, along with a large set of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'references' means, the scope of search, or how results are structured. The output schema exists but its content is not provided; the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 descriptions for all three parameters ('Search type', 'Search query', 'Search scope'), so schema coverage is effectively 100% despite context indicating 0%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'コード参照検索' (code reference search) indicates the tool finds references but doesn't specify what kind (e.g., method, model, constant). It is not a tautology and provides a general purpose, but lacks specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like rails_lens_explain_method_resolution or rails_lens_dead_code.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many search-like tools (e.g., rails_lens_explain_method_resolution, rails_lens_dead_code), and the description offers no context for choosing this one.

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