gdscript_references

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

The description adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true) by emphasizing that coordinates are zero-based and that the return format is a list of locations with file, line, character. This provides behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover, such as the coordinate system and output structure.

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?

Two concise sentences with a clear front-loaded verb ('Find') and a short usage suggestion. Every sentence is informative with no fluff. The structure efficiently conveys purpose, return value, and an important behavioral note (zero-based coordinates).

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 low complexity (3 params, full schema, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format and a key behavioral trait (zero-based). However, it could mention whether results are sorted or if there are performance considerations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description re-emphasizes zero-based coordinates but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The schema already describes line and character as zero-based, so the description's repetition adds marginal value.

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 finds all references to a symbol across the entire project, with a specific verb ('Find all references') and resource ('symbol across the entire project'). It distinguishes from siblings like gdscript_definition or gdscript_references_in_file by emphasizing the project-wide scope and the use case for impact analysis before refactoring.

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 explicitly states the tool is 'Essential for impact analysis before refactoring' and asks 'What code uses this symbol?' which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternative sibling tools like gdscript_references_in_file for single-file searches, so it misses some exclusion guidance.

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