find_project_references

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

No annotations are provided; the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it handles large results (e.g., limit default of 50), or any error conditions. While it describes what it finds, key behavioral aspects are missing for a safe and predictable invocation.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the key filtering parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits important context about the 'limit' parameter and its default of 50, which affects result completeness. For a tool with 3 parameters and one optional with a default, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description adds meaning for the 'ref_kind' parameter by providing example values like 'call', 'include', 'type'. However, it does not explain the 'symbol' parameter beyond its obvious role, and the 'limit' parameter is entirely undocumented. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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: finding all usage sites of a symbol, including calls, includes, type references, etc. It specifies the resource (project) and the action (find references), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific reference types like callers/callees.

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 implies usage for general reference search by enumerating reference kinds. It provides a basic filtering option (ref_kind). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_project_callees or find_project_callers, which would help an agent decide when to use this tool over others.

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