art.memory.find_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 does not explain what 'approved' means as a filter default, whether the search returns partial matches, how results are ordered, or what happens when no filters are provided (does it return all references?). It also doesn't describe the return format or pagination 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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is too under-specified to be truly useful. It does not front-load any key differentiators or important constraints. It might earn a 4 for brevity but lacks substance, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 has 5 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex domain (art references with multiple roles and statuses), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what type of references are being searched (style, character, etc.) despite the schema listing roles. An agent would need to infer the full context from the schema alone, which is possible but not ideal.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a basic description ('Filter by role', 'Filter by status', etc.). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, just using the word 'optional filters' which is already implied by required parameters being 0. It does not clarify the meaning of 'approved' as a status vs. a filter value.

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 'Search for approved references with optional filters' clearly states the action (search) and resource (references), but it does not specify what kind of references (e.g., art references) or how it differs from sibling tools like art.memory.find_anchors or art.memory.resolve_references. The word 'approved' might imply a default status filter, but it's ambiguous whether it's a default or a filter option.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it's for searching art references specifically, nor does it differentiate from other search tools like art.asset.find or art.memory.find_rejections. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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