bw_xref

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that source_system is required for RSDS and that the padded objectName is built automatically, but does not mention return format or side effects; however, as a read-only lookup, this is acceptable.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, examples, special case, and comparison with sibling. No redundant or filler content.

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 description covers when and how to use, but lacks description of the return value (a list of references) since no output schema is provided. Minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, but description enriches semantics by specifying that object_type=DTPA finds process chains and that source_system triggers auto-construction of objectName for RSDS.

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 ('Find where-used / dependencies') and resource ('BW object'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_get_dtp by mentioning it is preferred when only the process chain is needed.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (find dependencies) with concrete examples (Transformations, DTPs referencing aDSO) and provides an alternative (preferred over bw_get_dtp for process chain lookup).

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