art.ref.canonical

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, and 'filters retrieve results to only canonical status entries' discloses the main behavioral characteristic. However, it does not mention possible side effects, authentication requirements, ordering, pagination, or what qualifies as canonical, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Get canonical assets') and then clarifies the filter behavior. Every phrase adds useful information, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 simple retrieval tool with two optional string filters, this description conveys the core contract but leaves some operational ambiguity: what happens when no filters are provided, what 'canonical status' means, and what the return structure looks like. These gaps are noticeable because there is no output schema and no annotations to fill them in.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document type and material as filters. The tool description simply restates these dimensions ('type/material') without adding detail such as acceptable formats, default behavior when omitted, or how the two filters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 identifies a specific operation ('Get canonical assets') and the filtering dimensions (type/material). It distinguishes the intent from generic asset retrieval by emphasizing canonical status, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like art.ref.retrieve. A concise, recognizable purpose.

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 phrase 'filters retrieve results to only canonical status entries' implicitly tells the agent that this tool is appropriate when canonical assets are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over art.ref.retrieve, art.asset.find, or other retrieval tools. Usage context is clear but not fully differentiated.

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