find_method_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 use of zero-based coordinates and the load_project prerequisite, but does not detail output format, error handling, or constraints like the default maxResults limit. The output is described as 'all locations' without specifics, which may be slightly misleading given the maxResults parameter.

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 well-structured with sections for usage, output, and important notes. It is concise but includes some generic 'Useful for' bullet points that may not add significant value for an AI agent. Overall, it earns its space with clear organization.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what 'locations' contain. It fails to specify the format of output (e.g., file paths, line numbers). It does mention prerequisites and zero-based coordinates, which are helpful, but missing details on error cases and default limits reduce completeness.

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%, so the description adds limited value. It reinforces zero-based coordinates already described in the schema but does not elaborate on filePath or maxResults beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of 'maxResults' is absent, leaving the schema to bear full parameter meaning.

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 method reference expressions (Foo::bar lambda syntax), distinguishing it from the sibling 'find_references' which likely finds all references. It specifies JDT-UNIQUE and not available in LSP, providing precise purpose.

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 usage instruction: 'Position on a method, or provide method details' and emphasizes zero-based coordinates. It also specifies a prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like 'find_references'.

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