find_refs

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. It states that the tool parses text and finds all Sefaria references, and mentions reference conversion, but it doesn't describe output format, edge cases, or any transformation details. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core operation and then add practical use cases. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name, and every sentence contributes useful signal.

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 a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what input is expected. The main gap is not specifying the return format, but the simple nature of the tool makes this a minor omission.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with 'The text to parse for references.' The description reinforces that the text is the source to search within, but it does not add substantial detail about the parameter's format, limitations, or expected input style beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') plus a clear resource ('text') and outcome ('find all Sefaria references within it'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling retrieval tools, which fetch texts or metadata rather than extracting references from supplied text.

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 explicitly gives two use cases: extracting citations from text and converting modern references to traditional ones. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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