Search References

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile and closed-world scope. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as result grouping, ordering, search scope, or limitations beyond what the annotations already declare.

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?

A single declarative sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. Some ambiguity remains about what counts as a 'symbol' and whether it could include class symbols, but the simplicity and structured metadata keep this from being a critical gap.

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 parameter description already explains that the value is 'the method name or symbol to find references for'. The tool description adds no syntax details, examples, or further semantic clarification, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Get all references') and a specific resource ('a method selector or a symbol'), which is clear and distinct from the class-focused sibling search_references_to_class. It stops short of an explicit contrast with related search tools, so it is not a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_references_to_class, search_methods_like, or search_implementors. The description only states the operation, leaving selection criteria entirely to inference.

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