search_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches reference docs, but does not mention whether it is read-only, what it searches (file names, content, metadata), what the return format is, or how failures/empty results are handled. The 'search before inventing' hint implies a read-only lookup but is not explicit.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, using a WHEN/HOW format that front-loads the most important context. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The description gives adequate context for deciding when to invoke the tool, but lacks important operational details. It does not explain the meaning or behavior of 'limit' and 'skillId', nor does it describe the output. Given the tool's relative simplicity, this is a noticeable but not critical gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description adds some context for query by suggesting it can contain method names or event signatures, but it says nothing about 'limit' or 'skillId'. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate and did not.

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: looking up API/reference docs in the references/ directory, with a specific directive to 'search before inventing method names or event signatures.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from broader documentation tools like search_documentation, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 'WHEN' clause gives a clear condition for use (looking up API/reference docs in references/), and the 'HOW' clause provides specific guidance: search before inventing method names or event signatures. This gives an agent actionable context, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools.

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