get_api_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates the operation is a read-style lookup by saying 'Get', and it lists the accepted areas, but it does not describe the return format, content structure, or behavior on invalid area input. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately follows with the necessary area values. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the complete set of supported area values and clearly defines the lookup target. It could mention the returned reference format, but the core information needed to select and call the tool is present.

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 only says 'API area to look up' with no enum, so the description's explicit list of eight valid areas adds essential semantic value. This tells the agent exactly what values can be passed, which is the main parameter requirement.

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 gets a jam-nodes API reference for a specific area and enumerates the valid areas. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_node_info, list_nodes, search_docs, and get_guide, which serve different doc/info retrieval needs.

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 clear context: use this tool to look up API reference material for one of eight named areas. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the area list provides enough operational guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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