find_node_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the search scope (scene, script, resource, shader files) and the output limitation (up to 5 line numbers per file). It does not state that the operation is read-only or address case sensitivity, but for a search tool the key behavior is adequately covered.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Search'), and contains no filler words. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description fully covers both the input semantics (substring) and the return value (matching files with line numbers). It is self-contained and leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema only defines a string parameter 'pattern' with no description. The description clarifies that this pattern is treated as a literal substring, which is important semantic information distinguishing it from regex or glob. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly defines the resource scope ('all project scene, script, resource and shader files') plus the output format ('matching files with up to 5 line numbers each'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like find_script_references (which only targets scripts) and search_files (which lacks this file-type scope).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: whenever you need to search a literal substring across the specified project file types. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope itself implies appropriate usage, so it falls short of a 5.

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