find_by_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without mentioning read-only nature, side effects, or any constraints. For a search tool, the lack of explicit read-only indication or response format is a gap.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds examples and context. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at return format or result details. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., list of documents, highlighted matches). While the tool is simple, missing output behavior reduces completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for ref_value ('$D020', 'VIC+0', '156'), which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's descriptions. This helps an AI agent correctly format inputs.

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 purpose: 'Find documents by cross-reference.' It provides specific examples (memory addresses, register offsets, page references), which distinguishes it from general search tools like search_docs or fuzzy_search, making the purpose concrete and unambiguous.

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 contextualizes usage with 'Great for tracking how specific registers or memory locations are documented,' indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the focus on technical cross-references is clear.

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