find_references

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only profile, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the analysis is syntactic with no scope analysis, so false-positive matches occur, plus how C++ destructors and operators are named. This materially changes how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then structured when/when-not blocks and a short example — efficient overall. The trailing example largely duplicates the schema's own example, so it is mildly redundant but not wasteful.

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 annotations, a 100%-covered two-param schema, and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: output format, the syntactic-analysis caveat, and routing to a language server when scope matters.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'plain name, not a dotted path' constraint and the LRUCache example. The description's example repeats that guidance rather than adding new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list each occurrence of an identifier in a source file) and even fixes the output shape (`line N: <source line>`, file order). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_symbols or read_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?

Explicit 'Use this when: surveying a name's uses in a file before a rename' and 'Don't use this when: you need references across files or by scope (use a language server)' — both the trigger and the alternative are named.

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