find_references

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it uses an index, performance characteristics, or side effects. The burden is entirely on the description, which fails to address this.

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 short (5 words) and under-specified. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness, making it insufficiently informative.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description fails to provide essential context such as what the output looks like, what symbol_id refers to, or what 'intra-language' constraints mean. The description is incomplete for practical 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 0%, meaning the schema provides no description for the single parameter symbol_id. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the type (number), leaving the agent uncertain about what 'symbol_id' represents.

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 'Intra-language references to a symbol.' indicates the tool finds references to a symbol within the same language, which is clear but lacks a verb like 'Find' or 'List'. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like find_symbol, but could be more explicit.

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 on when to use or not use this tool compared to siblings like find_symbol or analyze_impact. The description does not mention context or alternatives.

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