find_references

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains parameters like limit, include_definition, output_format, and the return type. However, it does not specify error handling or what happens if symbol not found, but overall it 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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It is concise but slightly lengthy due to listing all parameters; however, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description covers all parameters and return type. It could be more specific about the structure of code locations (e.g., file and line), but overall complete.

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 coverage is 0% so description adds full meaning for all five parameters: symbol name, path with default, limit, include_definition, and output_format with enum values. This significantly enriches the schema.

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 all usages/references of a symbol (function, class, variable). It distinguishes from siblings like code_search (broader search) and find_similar (similar code).

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 implies usage for finding symbol references but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives such as code_search or find_similar. No 'when-not' or alternative context provided.

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