get_sdk_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the tool's purpose for reference/debugging only, warning about internal/legacy SDK options, and recommending get_example for integration patterns. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the added context helps the agent understand behavioral nuances not covered by structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines in the first sentence, followed by specific instructions and warnings. Every sentence adds value—clarifying the tool's scope, restrictions, and alternatives—with no redundant or unnecessary information. It efficiently conveys critical information in a compact form.

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 the tool's complexity (fetching SDK source code with multiple parameters) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context effectively. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or format, which is a minor gap. The annotations and schema compensate well, but the description could slightly enhance completeness by hinting at output structure.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning 'type definitions, interfaces, hooks, and error types,' which aligns with the 'focus' parameter options, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Fetch SDK source code') and resource ('from the open-source Web3Auth SDK repos'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_doc or get_example. It explicitly mentions fetching type definitions, interfaces, hooks, and error types, providing a precise scope that differentiates it from other tools that might return documentation or examples.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for REFERENCE and DEBUGGING only') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use this to discover features'). It also names an alternative tool ('Always use get_example first for integration patterns'), clearly differentiating usage contexts from siblings like get_example, get_doc, search_community, and search_docs.

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