roslyn:find_references

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

The description discloses the important behavioral trait of zero-based coordinates and states the return format (file paths, line numbers, code context). With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it could mention further behavioral aspects like performance expectations.

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 concise with two sentences and a bolded important note. Every part adds value without unnecessary words.

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 moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, coordinate system, and return content. It could be more explicit about response structure, but overall it is complete enough for agent use.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra context by emphasizing zero-based coordinates for line and column, and elaborates on the maxResults parameter with default and truncation behavior, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 solution, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like roslyn:find_callers and roslyn:find_implementations.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_callers or find_implementations. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context for choosing it over siblings.

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