art.ref.retrieve

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does disclose that the tool scores and returns top assets using specific criteria, which is useful. However, it doesn't say whether it is safe/read-only, how it resolves ties, whether filters are required, or what happens when nothing is found.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the tool's main purpose and then lists its scoring dimensions, earning its space without any unnecessary detail.

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 retriever with four optional parameters and no output schema, this description provides the basic outcomes and scoring criteria. But because there are no annotations and multiple sibling tools overlap in retrieval behavior, more context about what 'references' mean and when to choose this tool over siblings is missing.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the description is at the baseline. The description adds an implicit connection between scoring dimensions and filters (e.g., material match, but it doesn't clearly map each scoring dimension to a specific parameter beyond that.

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 action with a specific verb ('retrieval') and resource ('assets'), and even gives scoring dimensions like canonical status, style match, material match, and recency. It is clear enough to distinguish it from generic asset lookups, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or clarify what constitutes a 'reference'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool vs alternatives such as art.asset.find or art.ref.canonical. It does not compare against siblings or provide any 'when-not-to-use' context, leaving the agent to assume when ranked retrieval is appropriate.

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