ref_get

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains that reference guides are a subset of documents focusing on UI components, but does not mention error handling, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the component is not found. Partially adequate.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance, then examples in bullet points. No redundant information; every sentence is necessary.

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 presence of an output schema (so return format is covered) and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context about purpose, parameters, and usage examples. Minor missing behavioral details but acceptable for a retrieval tool.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the concept of reference guides, giving examples (panel, hvplot), and clarifying default behavior (project defaults to all). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 finds reference guides for specific components in HoloViz or user-defined projects. It specifies the resource (reference guides), scope (specific components), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (know exact component name) and when not to (fuzzy search), and provides an alternative tool (search). This is clear guidance for the agent.

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