get_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only intent, potential side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. The phrase 'full detail' is vague and does not clarify the return format or any limitations.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval operation, and there is no unnecessary content or fluff.

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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. The agent cannot determine the expected input format, return structure, or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the model must be open). It fails to provide sufficient context for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% two parameters with no description coverage, and the description does not explain 'model_id' or 'reference_ref'. The agent is left to guess their meanings from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient for reliable invocation. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema titles already provide.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('one reference'), and adds 'full detail' to indicate the scope. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the tool as retrieving a single reference rather than a list. However, it does not mention any differentiation from sibling tools like list_references or other get_* tools, relying on the name to imply uniqueness.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_references or search. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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