LSP references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the positional convention (zero-based LSP position) but says nothing about what is returned (declarations included? cross-file?), whether an LSP server must be running, or how the optional paths parameter changes 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 scoping detail (position-based lookup) is front-loaded. Efficient, though minimal.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation leave the description too thin for a 4-parameter tool with several near-duplicate siblings. An agent lacks enough information to call it correctly or route to it over find_references.

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% across 4 parameters. The description alludes to an identifier position (implying line/character/path) but never explains the required path/line/character semantics or the purpose of the extra optional 'paths' array, which is undocumented everywhere.

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 (return) and resource (reference locations) scoped to an identifier at a position, so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it gives no signal distinguishing it from close siblings like find_references and find_indexed_references, nor does it explicitly contrast with lsp_definition.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over find_references, find_indexed_references, or lsp_definition. No prerequisites (e.g., LSP server availability, file open state) are mentioned.

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