Get Resource Reference Tool

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

While annotations indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, auth requirements, or side effects). It does not disclose what happens when the resource ID is invalid or missing.

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 and technically concise, but it is too brief to be informative. It sacrifices essential details for brevity, so it does not earn its place with meaningful content.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of similar siblings, the description is insufficient. It omits what a resource reference is, the output format, and error behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 coverage is only 50% (resourceId has a description, resourceType does not). The description does not compensate by explaining the parameters or their relationship. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, failing to clarify the role of resourceType.

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 states the tool returns a resource reference for MCP clients, which conveys a general purpose. However, it is vague and essentially restates the tool name without specifying what a resource reference is or how it differs from sibling tools like get-resource-links.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it. No context for selection is given, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's specific role among many siblings.

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