reference_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns matches plus uncertainties and exact source versions, and it explicitly warns that outside-scope incoming links remain unknown, which is a completeness limitation an agent must know about.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return/limitation caveat and a doc pointer. No filler, though 'See help topic references' shifts work to an external document rather than resolving it inline.

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?

The tool is read-only with an output schema, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still usefully flags uncertainties and version reporting. The gap is the parameter side: with 9 params, nested objects and 0% schema coverage, the undocumented max* limits leave an agent guessing about throttling and truncation behavior.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It partially does: 'source and resolution scopes' maps to scope/resolutionScope, and 'file/heading/block' maps to the target object. But the seven max* limit parameters (maxFiles, maxEntries, maxResults, maxFileBytes, maxTotalBytes, maxOutputBytes) get no mention at all, leaving a large documentation gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find references to a file/heading/block'), which tells an agent this is a backlink/reference lookup rather than a content search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, search_query, leaving the agent to infer the split between 'what links here' and 'find text'.

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?

Usage is implied by 'within explicit source and resolution scopes' and the caveat about outside-scope links, which hints at the scoping model an agent must set up. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. versus search_query), only a pointer to 'help topic references' that defers the decision to external docs.

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