find_symbol_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (paths, line numbers, import-vs-reference classification, snippets), but says nothing about truncation/limits tied to max_matches or workspace scoping behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return format. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, four undocumented optional parameters and the absence of any alternative-tool routing leave meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter search tool.

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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description compensates only implicitly via 'across workspace code files'. The optional sub_dir, path_glob, workspace, and max_matches parameters receive no explanation of their effect on the search.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find call-sites, imports, and usages of a specific symbol across workspace code files.' This clearly separates it from a symbol-definition lookup, but it never names a sibling (e.g. search_symbols, grep_search) to make the distinction explicit.

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 states scope ('across workspace code files') but gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, despite siblings like search_symbols, grep_search, and deep_search that overlap heavily. An agent must infer the selection rule.

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