find_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape in broad terms (file locations and compact line numbers) and implies a read operation, but it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or behavior of optional flags.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return behavior. There is no wasted text.

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 fully explained. But for a seven-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves critical parameter semantics and invocation guidance incomplete.

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 schema has seven parameters and zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions symbols and locations only generically and does not explain file_path, line, character, limit, symbol_name, include_snippet, or include_declaration.

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: finding references and usages of a symbol across the workspace. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as go_to_definition or rename_symbol.

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 a clear use case: assessing the impact of changes. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives like go_to_definition or rename_symbol.

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