buscar_referencias

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing and constrains it to imported/used locations of an exported symbol. Still, it does not disclose the output shape, whether an index must be up to date, or how unknown/non-exported symbols are handled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter query tool. It loses a point only because the brevity leaves no room for usage caveats or output expectations, though those are partially captured by other dimensions.

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, the description is adequate: it states the input type (exact exported symbol name) and a high-level result (a list of places). However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what a 'place' is (file path, line number, snippet) or whether the index must be current, so completeness is only partial.

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?

The schema already documents 'nombre' as the exact symbol name with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the symbol must be exported and that matches are places where it is imported or used, helping the agent choose a valid argument.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a precise object ('los lugares donde un símbolo exportado se importa o se usa'), clearly identifying the tool as a reference/usage finder. This semantically distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_simbolo (definition lookup) or buscar_texto (raw text search), even without naming them explicitly.

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 the use case: find all import/use locations of an exported symbol. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over buscar_simbolo, trazar_camino, or listar_exports, nor does it give exclusion criteria or mention any needed preconditions beyond the symbol being exported.

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