list_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes that the tool lists 'shared reference files' (implying a read operation), but does not mention whether authentication is required, if results are paginated, or any other behavioral context. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

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 that is front-loaded and concise. It includes examples for clarity without any unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not describe the return format or any pagination behavior. For a list tool, an agent might benefit from knowing what fields are returned (e.g., names, IDs). However, the minimal description passes for a trivial 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not add parameter information because none exists. No deduction needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all shared reference files, with specific examples (cluster contexts, environment map, port conventions). The verb 'list' and resource 'shared reference files' are specific, and there is no ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_reference (which retrieves a specific reference) and list_memory (different resource type).

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: use when you need an overview of all available reference files. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The description does not mention that for a specific reference, get_reference should be used, or how this differs from search_platform_knowledge.

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