get_reference

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral context. It mentions 'cached' but lacks details on staleness, performance, error handling, or whether network calls are involved. The optional section behavior is described, but otherwise the tool's side effects and reliability are opaque.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter is explained in the second sentence. Every word serves a purpose.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, caching semantics, or what 'heading block' means, leaving an agent without enough context to use the tool reliably.

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 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: 'slug' identifies the doc, and 'section' optionally returns one heading block. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify formats or constraints.

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 action ('get') and resource ('full cached doc for a slug'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying a unique function. The optional section parameter is also explained, providing a specific purpose for a common variant.

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 description implies usage when needing a cached doc or a specific section, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_reference or check_reference. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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