carrel_refs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tagging mutates files (ref:<kind>:<value> tags) and that an alternate grouping output exists, which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions, whether tagging overwrites existing tags, or what the default non-link return looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the optional behaviors after a semicolon. The long parenthetical of kinds is dense but the schema repeats it, so it is slightly redundant rather than wasteful.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimal: it never describes the default result shape (matches per file), how tag/link/all interact, or what OCR enables behaviorally. Key interaction semantics are left to the schema defaults 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the kinds list and the patterns name=regex convention. The description only restates the kind enumeration already present in the schema, adding no syntax or default information beyond it.

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 clear verb ('Find'), resource ('reference numbers'), an enumerated set of kinds, and scope ('in a file or directory'). It is distinguishable from siblings like carrel_search and carrel_fields, though it never names them, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 two optional modes ('tag files' and 'group files by shared value') hint at when the extra flags matter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over carrel_search, carrel_fields, or carrel_tag, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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