find_references

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, deterministic read operation. The description doesn't add behavioral details beyond this, such as rate limits or output format, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 disorganized list of keywords ('어디서 쓰|참조|사용처|find usage|references|where used') followed by a phrase ('Find symbol references'). It lacks proper sentence structure and front-loading, making it inefficient and unclear despite its brevity.

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's complexity (finding references in code) and lack of output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'references' means in this context, the return format, or how it differs from similar tools. Annotations cover safety, but more context is needed for effective 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating or enhancing the schema details.

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 states the tool finds symbol references, which is a clear purpose, but it's presented as a list of keywords ('어디서 쓰|참조|사용처|find usage|references|where used') rather than a coherent sentence. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'find_symbol' or 'analyze_dependency_graph', leaving ambiguity about its specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a keyword list with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'find_symbol' or 'analyze_dependency_graph' might overlap, but no comparison is made.

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