usageReferenceSnippets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema). This leaves the agent with insufficient information about how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action ('Retrieves'). There's no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to the overall inadequacy by omitting necessary 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?

Given the complexity implied by the parameter (an array of 'references'), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, how to use the parameter, or what to expect in return, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, documenting only that 'references' is a required array without explaining what it should contain. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't clarify what 'references' are, their expected format, or examples of valid values. For a single undocumented parameter, this is a significant gap.

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 'Retrieves usage reference snippets' restates the tool name 'usageReferenceSnippets' with a generic verb ('retrieves'), making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'usage reference snippets' are, what resource they come from, or how they differ from the sibling tool 'usageReferences' (which appears to serve a similar purpose). This provides minimal differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'usageReferences' that likely handles related functionality, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools should be considered instead.

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