find_referencing_symbols

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying that it 'Returns locations with snippets,' giving context about output format beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, performance implications, or what 'symbol' means in this context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick comprehension by an agent.

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 tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description is incomplete—it lacks parameter explanations and usage context. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions no parameters, leaving all 5 inputs (e.g., 'name_path', 'relative_path', 'include_kinds') undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, resulting in significant gaps for parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Find references to symbol' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'find_symbol' by focusing on references rather than definitions, though the distinction could be more explicit. The description is not tautological and provides meaningful context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_symbol' or other search-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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