Find Referencing Symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what the result contains (metadata about referencing symbols and short code snippets) and that it returns a list of JSON objects. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance impacts or result size constraints.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality and result format, while the second clarifies the return type. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns a list of JSON objects'), the description provides complete contextual information. It adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and references sibling tools where appropriate, making it sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly, including references to the 'find_symbol' tool for parameter behavior. The description doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Finds references') and resource ('the symbol at the given name_path'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it returns referencing symbols rather than finding symbols themselves. It explicitly mentions what the result contains (metadata and code snippets), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context by mentioning the tool finds references to a symbol, suggesting it should be used when you need to know where a symbol is referenced. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_symbol' or provide exclusion criteria, though the parameter descriptions reference 'find_symbol' for some parameters.

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