get_secret_storage_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the raw endpoint path; it says nothing about what a "ref" is, whether results can be large, or whether the storage must exist.

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 terse fragments with no filler, but the brevity comes from omission rather than economy. The verb phrase is front-loaded, which is the only structural strength.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should have explained what the returned references represent and roughly what shape they take; it does neither. For a lookup tool whose value depends entirely on interpreting "refs," the definition leaves the core question unanswered.

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 0%, so the description carries weight, and the URL template does clarify that project_id and storage_id are path-scoped identifiers with a nesting relationship (storage lives under project). The parameter names are self-explanatory integers, so this is adequate but adds little beyond placement.

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?

"Get Refs" essentially restates the tool name (get_secret_storage_references), and "Refs" is never expanded into "references to this secret storage." The REST path does pin the resource to a project-scoped secret storage, which lifts it above pure tautology, but an agent still has to guess whether this returns objects referencing the storage or references held by the storage.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this rather than siblings such as get_secret_storage (the item itself) or the parallel *_references tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what an agent should do with the result.

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