coras_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's scope and the editor's rejection behavior, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only or what form the returned reference takes, leaving some operational behavior implicit.

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 two tight sentences: the first defines the scope with a compact list, and the second gives a concrete when-to-use trigger. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 no-parameter reference tool, the description is largely complete: it states what the reference covers, when to use it, and why it matters. A minor gap is that it does not describe the output format or length, but the enumerated content list makes the expected information clear.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead focuses on the tool's content and purpose, which is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless reference.

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 the tool as a reference for the CORAS language as implemented by this 2007 tool, and enumerates its contents: element types, relationships, treatments, and text notation. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as the first thing to read when checking whether an arrow is legal. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'provides,' but the 'reference' role is unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit use condition: 'Read this first when you are unsure whether an arrow is allowed.' It also supplies a concrete reason (the editor refuses to open files with illegal relationships), which helps an agent decide when to consult it. It does not compare against named alternatives, but the sibling set makes the reference role distinct.

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