find_references

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses zero-based coordinates and a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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 very concise, using short lines and headings (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT). Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, usage, prerequisites, and coordinate system. However, without an output schema, more details on the output format (e.g., what 'context' includes) would improve completeness. Overall, it is fairly thorough for a find 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter adequately. The description reinforces zero-based coordinates, which are already in the schema, and mentions maxResults default, which is also in the schema. It does not add new semantic value 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 'Find all references to a symbol across the project,' specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'find_method_references' generically, but does not explicitly state that it covers all types of references, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

Provides usage guidance ('Position on symbol') and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). However, it does not discuss when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'find_method_references' or 'find_implementations', which are available as siblings.

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