add_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool copies a file, mentions allowable paths (absolute or under output folder), and optional destination naming. However, it does not state whether existing files are overwritten, what happens on failure, or if the tool is destructive.

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 extremely concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by three bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is adequately complete for a simple file copy operation. It explains the effect and parameter meanings, but lacks disclosure about overwrite behavior, error cases, or return value, which would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explains source_path (existing image on disk, absolute or under output), name (optional destination filename), and group (optional subfolder). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 states a specific verb 'copy' and resource 'image file into reference library under output/refs', clearly distinguishing its purpose. Among sibling tools like list_references or view_reference, it is uniquely about adding a file.

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 for adding images to the reference library, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like view_reference or list_references. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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