references

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: exact matching, tree-sitter backing, caps (400 files, 300 results), truncation flag, languages supported, and return format. It also warns about false positives, making it highly transparent.

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 informative but verbose, with several sentences that could be merged or removed (e.g., 'A signature is not the body...'). It front-loads the main purpose but could be more compact without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return JSON structure, including fields, kinds, and context. It covers constraints, languages, and truncation behavior, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value: it mentions the symbol name should be from 'find or overview' and that path defaults to '.'. This is helpful context but not beyond what the schema implies.

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 who uses a symbol across a directory, and contrasts it with sibling tools like 'find' and 'grep'. It provides concrete examples like 'Who calls X', 'what imports it', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explains when to use this tool (to locate references with precision, avoiding grep false positives) and gives workflow guidance ('use it to LOCATE things, then Read the actual source'). It could more explicitly state when not to use it, but the inverse relation to 'find' is clear.

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