scm_git_references_get_instance

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, and it discloses nothing. For a GET there is no mention of permissions, error behavior, or what the include/fields parameters actually change about the response. The description adds zero behavioral context.

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 text is short but not concise in the useful sense — it is under-specified, and the parenthetical duplicate of the same route adds no information. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than efficient editing.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the resource and the effect of the sparse-fieldset/include options. It provides none of this, leaving the definition inadequate for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters (id, include, fields_scmRepositories, fields_scmGitReferences) carry descriptions with enumerated values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 is a bare restatement of the tool name as an HTTP route ('GET /v1/scmGitReferences/{id}'), duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys only that this is a read of one resource keyed by id, with no explanation of what an SCM git reference is or how it relates to the many sibling read tools. This is tautology rather than a stated purpose.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scm_repositories_git_references_get_to_many_relationship or scm_pull_requests_get_instance. Nothing is stated, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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