references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('Dictionary with 'locations' array or 'status'/'message' if initializing'), which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like error conditions, performance characteristics, or what 'initializing' means in the return context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return information. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the return statement could be slightly more concise. The information is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality first.

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 presence of an output schema and the detailed parameter explanations in the description, the tool is well-documented for its complexity. The description covers the essential what, how (via parameters), and what to expect in return. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling 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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose: 'file_path: Absolute path to the Java file', 'line: 0-indexed line number', 'character: 0-indexed character position', and 'include_declaration: Whether to include the declaration in results'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Find all references') and target ('to the symbol at the given position'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'definition' or 'implementation' which serve different purposes. It uses precise technical language appropriate for a code analysis 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'definition' or 'implementation'. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools that might overlap in functionality.

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