find_references

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers limited behavioral context beyond the return type. There is no mention of side effects, permission requirements, or performance implications, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 concise, uses a clear structure with Args and Returns sections, and front-loads the purpose. It loses a point for the slightly verbose docstring format, but overall it's efficient.

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, the description adequately covers return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. Thus it is minimally viable but has gaps.

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 adds meaning to all three parameters (item_type, name, reference_type) beyond the bare schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains the role of each parameter, especially reference_type as a filter. A higher score would require more detail on allowed values.

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 verb 'find' and resource 'references to a specific Odoo element across the codebase', which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_odoo_index or get_item_details, thus a 4.

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 vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no context for appropriate usage. It solely describes the function without usage recommendations.

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