get_reference

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the purpose itself. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (get), but does not mention whether it returns code snippets, requires network access, or has any side effects. A basic 3 is given because the non-destructive nature is evident from the tool name.

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 concise and well-structured: a single lead sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear Args list with bullet points for allowed values. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 description covers all necessary context for a two-parameter tool: purpose, when to use, and parameter values. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. It could be slightly more complete with an explicit mention that the example includes code, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

While the schema provides generic descriptions for both parameters, the description adds significant value by enumerating all supported values for problem_type (LP, MIP, SOCP, NLP) and language (Python). This goes well beyond the schema's '求解问题类型' and 'API接口语言', making parameter meaning fully explicit.

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: to retrieve reference examples for a specified problem type and language in COPT. The verb '获取' (get) combined with the resource '参考示例' (reference examples) and specific parameters (problem_type, language) makes it specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_citation and get_api_doc.

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 provides clear usage context by recommending calling this tool before solving a problem with COPT. This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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