get-runbook-references

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explain the return format, potential errors, pagination, or side effects. The single sentence provides minimal insight into behavior.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though it could provide more detail without becoming verbose.

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 simple read operation, the description is minimal but lacks context about what 'references' refers to, the expected response structure (no output schema), and when to use this tool relative to other runbook tools. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 has one required parameter (runbook_id) with 0% description coverage. The description only implies that runbook_id identifies the runbook, but does not explain its format, how to obtain it, or its role in fetching references. This fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clear verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'references for a runbook,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-runbook or get-runbook-versions. However, it does not clarify what 'references' means, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as needing a runbook ID from get-runbooks.

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