get_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a static curated read-only reference and lists its breadth, but it does not say what happens for an unrecognized topic (error vs. full reference), nor whether the result is cached or static. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated 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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the parameter guidance. The long parenthetical topic enumeration is dense but each item adds real scope information, so there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value format need not be described, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter. Between the enumerated coverage and the parameter examples, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the invalid-topic behavior is left open.

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 the description must compensate, and it does: it names the single parameter, marks it optional, and supplies four concrete example values. It falls short of an authoritative topic list ('e.g.' implies open-ended), and 'versions' appears in the examples but not in the enumerated content list, a minor inconsistency.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the curated Serpent 2 quick reference') and enumerates the exact subject areas covered, which makes the scope unambiguous. The word 'curated' implicitly separates it from search_docs/get_card, but it never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 second sentence explains how to use the optional parameter ('Optionally request one topic'), which is implied usage guidance. It says nothing about when to prefer this reference over search_docs, get_card, or get_examples when an agent needs Serpent 2 knowledge, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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