Find what references an object

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 exact matching rules (case-insensitive, not substrings), distinguishes exclusions from inclusions, and critically explains the coverage limitation and the meaning of the `strength` field. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, reported locations, exclusion distinction, matching rules, coverage caveat, and strength field. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the critical aspects: what it returns (locations), key limitations (partial coverage), and the strength field. It could be more explicit about the overall output structure, but it is adequate for a complex 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the name matching behavior already present in the schema but adds no new parameter-specific semantics. It does mention `strength` as an output field, not a parameter.

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 'Find' and resource types (package, computer group, script), and clearly frames the tool as a pre-deletion/changing check. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like findCriteriaReferences or findGroupDependencies.

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 explicitly says this is 'the check to run before deleting or changing one' and warns that partial-clear results must not be read as permission to delete. It provides a clear when-to-use and a when-not-to-trust, but does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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