Find references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits essentials: whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires a pre-built index, how results are returned or paginated, and how unresolved names are handled. 'Across supported source files' hints at scope but nothing about behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the key constraint (by name) front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

For a lookup tool with two undocumented required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several near-identical siblings, the description leaves too much open: result shape, index prerequisites, and why this tool over the alternatives are all unstated.

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 both required parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. 'By name' loosely maps to the name param and 'source files' loosely to paths, but there is no format guidance (plain identifier vs qualified name, single file vs directory) for either.

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 ('Find identifier references') plus scope ('by name across supported source files'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like lsp_references or find_indexed_references, leaving the agent to guess which reference-finder to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite four other reference/definition siblings in the toolset. The agent gets no signal about whether this is the indexed variant or the live-LSP variant, or when this is preferred.

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