stage_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Read') and frames itself as a prerequisite ('Call this before...'), implying no side effects. It also states the content scope, which adds context beyond a bare 'Reference' label.

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, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second sentence provides the usage context. Every word contributes value.

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 parameterless reference tool with no output schema, the description covers everything: what it provides (Stage block writing guidance), its content areas, and when to call it. No additional information is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is self-explanatory. There is nothing more to add.

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 ('Read') and resource ('[Stage] block'), and elaborates on the contents: 'positions, listeners, speech profiles and feel'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling reference tools like directive_reference and notation_reference, which target different blocks.

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 gives explicit timing/context: 'Call this before writing arrival-centric timing for the first time in a session.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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