get_api_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, and it does disclose the shape of what comes back: a class page plus a settings table with defaults, optionally extended with private/read-only settings. It omits any note on behavior for invalid class names, response size, or formatting, which keeps it short of full 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and why it matters, then the input convention. The trailing example list ('XYCursor', 'Tooltip', 'PieSeries', 'AxisRendererX') largely duplicates the schema examples, a small redundancy but not enough to hurt readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: class page plus settings table with defaults, plus the optional private table. It stops short of describing the rendered format or size of the reference, but for a read-only documentation lookup that is a minor omission.

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 both parameters are already documented (including the casing-insensitivity and the includePrivate default of false). The description adds only a restatement of the casing rule and an implicit hint that includePrivate surfaces read-only settings, which is baseline-level added value.

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 ('Get the per-class API reference for an amCharts 5 class') and enumerates what that payload contains (class page + settings table with defaults + optional private settings). The 'per-class' grain implicitly separates it from sibling reference tools, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_chart_reference or get_core_reference, which look like competing reference endpoints.

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?

Gives a clear reason to reach for this tool: it is 'the authoritative source for exact setting names and default values,' with concrete examples (cornerRadius, axis `visible` default). It does not state when to prefer a sibling reference tool or what to do when the class is unknown/not found, so there are no exclusions or alternatives.

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