find_resource_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Find text references' without explaining whether it is read-only, what file types are scanned, how matching works, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or unnecessary details.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain more about return values, search scope, and parameter behavior. It does not cover these, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 only 33% (projectPath). The tool description adds meaning to resourcePath by clarifying it is 'project-relative', but it does not explain maxResults or its role in limiting output. The description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('text references to a project-relative resource path'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_project, but the scope is clear enough to understand what it does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to other search-related tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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