reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'look up' implying a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or output format. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer safety and behavior.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the valid topics. It is concise and free of filler, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but as a string it is efficient.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the valid topics, and the output schema presumably defines the return structure. The main gap is the lack of guidance on edge cases or alternatives, but for a straightforward lookup this is adequate.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by enumerating the allowed values for 'topic' (bins | coefficients | caveats | overview), which is more informative than the schema's bare string type with a default. It tells the agent exactly what inputs are valid.

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 action (look up) and the resource (HCL reference content), and even lists specific topics (bins, coefficients, caveats, overview). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_reference', which might overlap.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies that it is for retrieving HCL reference content, but does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it relates to siblings like 'get_reference' or 'list_presets'.

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