kit_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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the content domain but does not state that the tool is read-only, what it returns, what side effects it has, or whether it requires any setup. The agent is left to infer behavior from the name 'reference.'

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, short phrase with no filler and lists concrete categories, which is efficient. However, it is a fragment lacking a main verb, so it is concise but not a complete, well-formed specification.

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 parameterless reference tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent receives and when to use it. It does neither, and it does not distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as set_reference, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level meaning to add. The description's mention of 'parameters' refers to reference content, not tool inputs; with no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 concrete subject area (kits, strokes, plans) and specific categories, but it is a noun phrase without a verb. It does not state whether the tool retrieves, lists, or exports this reference data, nor does it differentiate itself from siblings like set_reference or get_model.

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 conditions or alternatives are given. The phrase 'Parameters and defaults for...' weakly implies this is a lookup source, but the description never says when to call this tool instead of a sibling such as look, set_reference, or set_plan.

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