get_reverse_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns patterns but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, response format, pagination, or performance implications. It is adequate but not richly informative.

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 the action, no redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose: first states function, second provides context and alternative.

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 and low complexity (one param), the description should explain what is returned. It says 'Return patterns' but does not describe the structure of the patterns (e.g., fields, pagination). It is missing details that would help an agent fully understand the output.

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 has 1 parameter (id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by calling it 'given pattern_id' and linking it to cross_references, clarifying that it is a pattern identifier. However, it does not elaborate on format beyond the schema's maxLength constraint.

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 returns patterns that reference a given pattern_id, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_cross_references by noting it shows incoming references vs outgoing. Verb is specific: 'return patterns' and resource is '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?

The description explicitly says it is a complement to get_cross_references (outgoing) and this shows incoming, advising to 'Use to find all consumers of a given pattern.' This provides clear when-to-use and differentiates from the sibling.

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