find_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (file path, line number, source line), the snapping behavior when a position lands off an identifier, and the advantage of using a symbol name. This goes beyond a simple statement of purpose.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return values, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the main function and contains no fluff.

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 tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and how to provide input correctly. It could mention limitations or sorting order, but these are not critical.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the preferred parameter combination (uri + symbol_name) and why it is preferred (avoiding off-by-one errors), as well as the fallback behavior. This clarifies the relationship between parameters beyond 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's function: 'Find all references to a symbol across the entire workspace.' This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope, and the mention of 'across the entire workspace' distinguishes it from narrower symbol tools.

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 gives clear guidance on how to call the tool (prefer a name over a raw position) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_definition or call_hierarchy. The use case is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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