usageReferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's resource-intensive, what format the results come in, or any error conditions. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'Find'.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Find') and target ('symbol references'). While severely under-specified, it achieves maximum efficiency in word economy.

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 a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does in practical terms, how to use the parameters, what results to expect, or how it differs from similar tools. For a search/reference tool in a development context, this leaves the agent guessing about fundamental usage.

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 schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'url', 'line', or 'column' parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they affect the search. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's minimally inferable from parameter names, leaving critical usage details undocumented.

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 'Find symbol references' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'usageReferences'. It doesn't specify what kind of symbols (functions, variables, classes?), what context (source code, documentation?), or what 'references' means (calls, usages, definitions?). While it indicates a search/find action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar tools like 'findDefinition' or 'findObjectPath'.

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 versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'findDefinition', 'findObjectPath', 'searchObject', and 'usageReferenceSnippets', there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's purpose or when it would be the appropriate choice. The description offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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