ik_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is plain text and the action is read-only via the verb 'Read', but it omits details like error handling, return format specifics, or any security considerations. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence followed by a compact list of topics. Every element is necessary and there is no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, the description provides the core action and valid inputs, but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools and does not describe the output's format beyond 'plain text'. It is moderately complete but leaves room for clearer differentiation and behavioral expectations.

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 description lists the allowed topics, essentially mirroring the schema's enum values. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining case sensitivity or how the topic maps to chapters, but it does make the parameter's purpose obvious.

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 clearly states the tool reads a language-reference chapter as plain text, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource. It lists the available topics, which helps distinguish it from general reference tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ik_grammar or ik_intrinsics that cover specific topics.

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 topic list implies when to use this tool (e.g., when you need a chapter on 'lexical' or 'types'), providing clear context. However, it offers no explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to ik_compiler_reference for compiler details or ik_grammar for grammar-specific queries.

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