get_cross_references

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that inferred_adjacent currently returns only same-suite siblings, not semantic similarity, and warns about treating inferred entries as not endorsed. Adds valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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, front-loaded with main purpose, efficient and without unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place.

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 complexity and no output schema, description explains both cross-reference types, provides usage warnings, and addresses key behavioral aspects. Lacks return format description but adequate for a simple tool with few parameters.

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 0%, so description partially compensates by explaining include_inferred's effect (returns inferred_adjacent) and its meaning. However, id parameter is not explained, and the default for include_inferred (true) is not mentioned. Adds some value but incomplete.

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?

Description clearly states it returns outgoing adjacencies for a pattern, distinguishing between explicit_cross_references (author-asserted) and inferred_adjacent (same-suite siblings). This is specific and differentiates from siblings like get_reverse_references.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use each type: explicit for author-asserted, inferred for same-suite siblings only, with a warning to not treat inferred as endorsed dependencies. Implicitly excludes semantic similarity use cases. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' for other siblings.

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