geck_cell_find_refs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Find references' and lists search keys; it omits state dependencies, matching semantics, whether selection changes, or what happens when no Cell View is selected. This is minimal for a stateful tool operating on a UI selection.

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 sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action and resource. It earns its place by conveying the essential purpose in compact form, even though other dimensions lack depth.

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?

There are 5 parameters, no annotations, and only 0% schema description coverage, yet the description provides almost no operational context. The output schema helps with return values, but the meaning of backend, exact, column, and max_matches, as well as the expected UI state, is missing, making the tool hard to invoke correctly in non-obvious situations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it only hints that the query can be an Editor ID, Form ID, or type. It does not map those concepts to the query or column parameters, nor does it explain exact, backend, or max_matches, leaving significant ambiguity for a 5-parameter tool.

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 action (find references), the resource (currently selected Cell View object list), and the search dimensions (Editor ID/Form ID/type). This specific resource distinguishes it from siblings like geck_esp_list_refs and geck_find_list_rows without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'currently selected Cell View object list' implies a precondition and a general use case, but the description does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as geck_esp_list_refs or geck_object_filter, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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