view_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'look at' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not state whether the image is displayed in a specific panel, whether the tool has side effects, or if it returns any data. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a short Args block for the parameter. Every piece of text is functional and front-loaded. No redundant or filler content is present.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose and parameter format. However, it lacks detail about the outcome of the action (e.g., does it display the image in the 3D viewport or a separate viewer?) and does not differentiate from the sibling view_image, leaving gaps for an AI agent deciding between similar tools.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does so by stating 'path: Path relative to output/refs, or absolute.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type/label, specifying the allowed path formats and default base directory.

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 'Look at a reference/guide image so you can match it while modeling,' which specifies a concrete verb (view) and resource (reference image). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like view_image or view_preview, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 phrase 'so you can match it while modeling' implies a use case, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives such as view_image or list_references for browsing. The usage context is only lightly hinted.

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