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 discloses that the tool performs compiler-level static analysis (not just text matching) and that it includes DI registrations and interface implementations. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but as a find operation it is implicitly read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, and the second gives actionable usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every word earns its place.

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 tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose and usage guidance but does not describe the return structure beyond the hint in the include_code parameter. Given the simplicity of the tool and the schema's parameter details, the description is largely complete, though a brief mention of the returned data (e.g., list of file/line/code) would improve it.

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 the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find everything that references a symbol') and clarifies that it includes compiler-visible sites like dependency-injection registrations and interface implementations, which differentiates it from text search and sibling tools like find_implementations. The purpose is unambiguous and the resource is well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Run this before renaming, changing a signature, or deleting.' It also implies a contrast with text search by saying it finds what a text search misses. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the directive is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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