get_c4_reference_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns documentation (Markdown), describes the single parameter, and lists possible values. While it omits mentioning that it is read-only or non-destructive, the nature of a reference lookup implies safety, and the output schema existence adds transparency.

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 at four sentences, with the purpose stated in the first line. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the parameter. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), presence of an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. It explains the return format, parameter options, and usage context, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explicitly documents the parameter 'topic' with its allowed values (elements, diagrams, relationships, all). This adds meaning beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of formal descriptions. The explanation of the parameter's purpose is clear.

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 returns C4 model reference documentation, specifying content (element types, diagram types, relationship conventions) and purpose (to aid in structuring create_c4_diagram inputs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create_c4_diagram, scan_codebase) by being a reference lookup.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before using create_c4_diagram to understand available elements. It provides context by explaining the return format (Markdown documentation) and parameter options, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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