Find references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it uses LSP and finds 'every' reference, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or how it handles the wait_ms timeout. It provides some context beyond annotations but not rich detail, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives usage context. Perfectly concise and 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 tool is simple, the schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety. The description explains the purpose and use case. It doesn't describe return value or edge cases, but for a read-only LSP references tool with no output schema, this is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly. A 4 fits.

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%, meaning all four parameters (path, line, column, wait_ms) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('Find every reference'), the target ('symbol at a position'), and the method ('through the LSP'). This distinguishes it from siblings like nvim_goto_definition (jump to definition) and nvim_hover (show info), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before a rename or a signature change,' giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, which would move it to a 5.

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