Search References to Class

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not explain what counts as a 'reference', whether the search spans the whole project, or whether it includes test code. With no additional behavioral disclosure, the description carries little value beyond the annotations.

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, active, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the minimal amount of information it conveys, though it could include more useful context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has only one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, so the core invocation is straightforward. However, the description is not complete enough because it fails to clarify the scope of 'references' and does not differentiate the tool from the sibling 'search_references'. For a simple tool this is adequate, but there is a clear gap in selection guidance.

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 'class_name' is already documented as 'The name of the class to find references for'. The description does not add any extra meaning, examples, or edge-case guidance around the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 references to a class' clearly states the action and the target resource with a specific verb and object. It is not a tautology because it uses 'find' rather than repeating 'search'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_references', which may have a broader scope, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 such as 'search_references' or 'search_implementors'. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent select this tool over its siblings. Usage context is left entirely to inference from the name and parameter.

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