file_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavior. It states 'Save' which indicates a write operation, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting, duplicate handling, or permission requirements. The description is not misleading, but lacks depth 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 focused sentences. The first sentence states the purpose with examples, and the second lists specific use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The tool has a simple 4-parameter schema and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and use cases. However, it could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools (e.g., 'for searching, use search_references') or clarifying what happens after saving (e.g., success message). Overall, it's sufficient for this low-complexity tool.

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 all four parameters (tags, title, content, filename) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Save' and the resource 'reference document' to the knowledge base, with examples of content types (canonical pattern, version guide, architecture notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_references (read) and file_bug (bug-specific write).

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 second sentence provides explicit use cases: 'working integration patterns, version compatibility matrices, and architectural decisions.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'save' vs. 'search' contrast with siblings implies when to use this tool. A brief exclusion (e.g., 'for bugs use file_bug') would elevate it to a 5.

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