get_reference_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the return mixes per-channel fields with a 'global reference label-display flag', which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about what happens with an out-of-range ref, error behavior, or whether the call is side-effect free.

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 action and target are front-loaded in the first clause, and the field list is compact. The '(manual 3.20)' citation and the multi-line wrapping add minor clutter for an otherwise efficient sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to enumerate return values, yet it does so helpfully and flags the one non-obvious global flag. The remaining gap is minor: nothing states valid input bounds explicitly or error behavior, but for a simple read-only getter this is close to complete.

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 0% and the single 'ref' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. 'REF1..REF10' does communicate the meaningful valid range of the parameter, though it stops short of explicitly stating the type/mapping (integer 1-10).

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 ('read back') and a precisely bounded resource (reference channel configuration, REF1..REF10), and enumerates the fields returned (source, scale/offset, color, label, global label-display flag). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the write-side sibling configure_reference without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-back framing, but the description never states when to reach for this versus configure_reference (the obvious counterpart) or get_channel, and gives no preconditions or exclusions. It is adequate context rather than real routing guidance.

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