clangd_references

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds the default behavior for configurations, but does not discuss include_declaration, timeout behavior, or how results are scoped or returned beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a precise default behavior. There is no wasted wording.

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 plus annotations, schema, and output schema give enough to invoke the tool, but it leaves gaps for a 5-parameter tool: it does not clarify include_declaration's default or timeout usage, and it provides no explicit routing versus related clangd tools.

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% for top-level parameters. The description only clarifies the behavior of the configurations parameter and does not explain timeout, include_declaration, path, or position beyond what the schema itself minimally defines.

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 references to the symbol.' This is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like clangd_definition or clangd_hover by the word 'references,' though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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 gives one useful usage rule: omitted or empty configurations select all available contexts. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clangd_definition, clangd_hover, or workspace_text_search.

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