reference_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses live fetching, SSRF guarding, and size caps—critical behavioral traits for a web-fetch tool. It also clarifies non-copy intent. Missing details like whether the page is stored or rate limits are minor gaps for a read-only inspection tool.

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 the first enumerating outputs and the second adding safety and usage qualifier. Every phrase earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose.

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?

For a single-parameter fetch-and-analyze tool, the description adequately covers inputs, outputs, safety, and usage intent. It lists expected return content, mitigating the lack of an output schema. It could mention alternative tools for source-level reading, but that is not essential for the tool's own 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?

The schema already defines the single 'url' parameter as a URI, providing format-level detail. The description adds semantic context that the URL should be a reference page to study, but it does not explicitly link the parameter to the described behavior or add constraints beyond 'web page'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Study') and concrete deliverables (title, description, frameworks, headings, top links) to clearly state what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by framing it as learning how a reference is built, not copying it, which separates it from reference_excerpt and reference_read_source.

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?

It provides clear context (use to understand how a reference is built) and an explicit when-not ('not to copy it'). However, it does not name alternative tools like reference_excerpt or reference_read_source, so it falls short of the highest bar for explicit alternatives.

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