get_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: a section returns its own text and lists its direct subsections, results are paged like get_table_context's markdown, and the guide is version-bound rather than print-bound. It omits auth requirements, error behavior, and page-size limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint (subsections, pagination, version scope, dependency scope). It is dense and slightly compressed in places ('Paged like get_table_context's md'), but there is little fat.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return shape (section text plus its direct subsections) and pagination, which is exactly what an agent needs. It leaves out cursor expiry or error semantics, but for a read-only documentation lookup it is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the spec_ref-citation workflow ('§2.2.4', 'ASSERTIONS.md §1.4'), clarifies that any heading depth works, and ties omission of `section` to the table of contents. That workflow context is not in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: look up the dbprint format spec, the assertion DSL spec, or the reading guide, resolving field meanings and spec_ref citations. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it depends on no connection or print, whereas what a print's tables hold is get_table_context's and list_tables' answer.

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?

Gives clear conditions: omit `section` for the heading tree, use a section number or a spec_ref copied verbatim from a finding, and use a heading's text for the guide. It also scopes the answer ('the guide this dbprint version ships, not the copy stored with a print'), though it never states a negative case for when NOT to reach for this tool beyond the implicit sibling contrast.

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