getSchemaReferences

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 implies a read-only operation ('Trouve') but does not disclose details such as matching behavior (exact vs partial), output format, or any limitations. The description is straightforward but lacks behavioral context beyond the core action.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, and the second sentence adds a valuable use-case context. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, what it searches for, and when it's useful. The agent can confidently invoke it based on this information alone.

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?

The single parameter schemaName has a description in the schema ('Le nom du schéma à rechercher'), providing 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trouve') and a clear resource ('tous les endpoints qui utilisent un schéma spécifique'), explicitly indicating the tool's function of finding endpoints referencing a given schema. This distinguishes it from siblings like getSchemas (which fetches schemas) and searchEndpoints (which does generic search).

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 a clear use case: 'Utile pour l'analyse d'impact lors de modifications de schémas', which tells when to use it (impact analysis for schema changes). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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