find_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses performance ('Fast operation (1-3s)') and mechanism ('efficiently searches the indexed code graph'), which is helpful. However, it does not discuss potential limitations, whether the search includes comments or test files, or any side effects (though likely none). This is adequate but not deeper transparency.

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 structured with clear labels (PURPOSE, USAGE, PERFORMANCE, WORKFLOW, TIP) and is front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes some redundancy (the TIP repeats the impact analysis point from USAGE) and uses emojis, but each section adds value. Overall, it is well-organized and not overly long for the information conveyed.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, performance, workflow, and a practical tip. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is less critical without an output schema. The description gives enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly in a typical workflow.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'symbol' ('Symbol name to find references for (exact or partial match)'). The tool description itself does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find all references to a symbol throughout the codebase' and elaborates with 'Discovers everywhere a symbol is used, imported, or referenced.' This is a specific verb + resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_callers or find_callees, which also deal with symbol relationships.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use after find_definition to understand how a symbol is used' and 'Essential for impact analysis before refactoring.' It gives a workflow (find_definition → find_references → ...) and a use case, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, stopping short of the highest rating.

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