project_get_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does well: it states the traversal depth, direction semantics, hard-reference filtering, and output keys. 'Get' and 'Uses the Asset Registry' strongly imply a read-only operation, though the description does not explicitly declare non-mutation or error behavior.

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 well organized into purpose, args, returns, KB reference, and example, with no filler. The example and return-key breakdown add real value rather than restating the schema.

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?

For a read-only query with an output schema, the description covers all inputs, the output shape, and the one-level limitation. It could be more complete by adding explicit usage conditions versus sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must fully explain the parameters, and it does. package_name gets a format example, direction gets explicit in/out/both meanings, and hard_only gets a precise edge-type definition. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get asset references (dependencies and/or referencers) for a package.' It also clarifies the traversal scope as 'one level of the reference graph,' which helps distinguish it from chain-traversal siblings like project_trace_reference_chain.

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 explains the mechanism (direction, hard_only) but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as project_trace_reference_chain or project_find_assets. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided inline; the KB reference is mentioned but does not substitute for explicit guidance.

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