get-code-references

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose that this is a read-only operation. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 very brief but not overly concise. It could be improved with more detail without becoming verbose. It is acceptable but minimal.

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 no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'references' means or what the response contains. The agent lacks information to understand the output, making the description incomplete for a simple lookup 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 input schema already describes the parameter well ('The identifier of the Feature Flag or Setting'). The tool-level description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 states 'Get References for Feature Flag or Setting' which includes a verb and resource. However, 'references' is ambiguous and could mean code references, usage references, etc., but it is clear enough to indicate the action and target.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-setting or get-config. The description lacks context about when to choose this over sibling tools.

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