find_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: resolution is scope/import-aware name matching (not full type inference), very accurate for module-level functions/classes, but methods may include same-named calls on unrelated types. This is good transparency about false positive risks. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but as a read operation, that is acceptable.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences explain resolution details and limitations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 that the tool has a rich output schema (true in context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential aspects: what is found (calls, attribute access, imports), output format (file:line and source line), and accuracy. It could mention pagination behavior explicitly, but parameters cover limit/offset. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters well and description adds no extra parameter context.

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 tool finds every use-site of a symbol (calls, attribute access, imports) with file:line and source line. It distinguishes itself from sibling find_symbol by explicitly noting that find_symbol is for definitions, so the agent knows which tool to use for references vs definitions.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use find_symbol to see where it is defined instead.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool. It also explains the resolution approach (scope/import-aware name matching) and accuracy limitations for methods, which helps set appropriate expectations for when to rely on results.

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