find_symbol_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 and delivers almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the search is workspace-wide or path-scoped, whether it is read-only (safe to assume but unstated), how results are ordered or paginated, or whether the symbol must be fully qualified.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no padding, which is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being earned concision. There is no front-loaded detail beyond the bare purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description should explain scope, result shape, and symbol format. It supplies none of these, leaving an agent to guess about the most consequential details of the call.

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 two parameters, and the description does not compensate: the meaning of 'path' (a search scope? a file to start from?) and the accepted form of 'symbol' (bare name, qualified name, regex?) are both unexplained. This is a clear gap that the description should have filled.

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 fragment 'Find symbol usage references' names a recognizable verb and resource (references to a symbol), so the intent is inferable. But it never distinguishes this from find_symbol_definition or clarifies whether 'references' means call sites, imports, or textual occurrences — sibling differentiation is left entirely to the agent.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus find_symbol_definition (which presumably locates the declaration) or when a path scope matters. The only guidance is the implicit contrast in the verb 'references', which is not enough for reliable routing between siblings.

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