wincode_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 disclosure burden. The verb 'Finds' clearly indicates a non-mutating, read-only operation, and the scope 'across the repository' sets expectations about breadth. It does not go into detail about performance or output shape, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that states the action, the object, and the scope without any filler. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one parameter and a simple query-like purpose, the description is largely complete. It would be improved by noting what the returned references look like (e.g., file paths with line numbers), but the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clarity of the described behavior.

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 100%, and the only parameter, symbolName, is already described as the 'Exact name of the symbol to trace.' The description adds very little beyond saying 'a specified symbol,' so by the baseline rule this is a 3—the schema carries the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Finds') and a specific resource ('all call sites and usages of a specified symbol across the repository'). It clearly indicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wincode_find_code_symbol by emphasizing call sites and usages rather than symbol definitions or broader analysis.

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 use case is implied by the description: an agent would use this when it needs to trace where a symbol is referenced. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as wincode_find_code_symbol or analyze_change_impact, and no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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