get_submodel_refs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('retrieves') and gives the HTTP endpoint, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. While 'retrieves' implies non-mutating, more context about response or failure modes would improve transparency.

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: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the corresponding HTTP endpoint, making it easy to scan.

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 simple GET operation with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the exact endpoint and action. It could mention that the shell must exist or that only refs (not full submodels) are returned, but these are minor gaps given the schema and endpoint clarity.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already fully explains their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, aligning with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 it retrieves all submodel references from a specific Shell, using the specific verb 'retrieves' and a precise resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_submodel (which gets a single submodel) and create_submodel_ref (which creates a ref).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the action and HTTP endpoint without noting exclusions or recommending when to choose this over get_submodel or get_submodel_refs. The HTTP endpoint is useful but does not constitute usage guidance.

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