get_cross_references

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 does add useful behavioral context via 'PageRank ranking' and 'anti-flooding diversity', plus the scale of the graph, but it says nothing about output shape, defaults, or operational caveats.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action, resource, graph scale, ranking algorithm, and diversity behavior. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the core 'what' and 'why' are clear. However, there is no output schema and the description never explains the shape of the returned cross-references or any default result-count behavior, leaving some ambiguity when an agent consumes the response.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to because book, chapter, verse, category, and max_results are already documented.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a clear resource ('theological cross-references from the 344,000+ TSK graph'), and adds ranking and diversity behavior. It clearly distinguishes from plain verse retrieval, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_parallel_verses or find_thematic_scripture_chain.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when theological cross-references for a verse are needed. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name any alternatives among the many sibling lookup/search tools.

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