get_strudel_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: version pinning to what the page actually loads, the descriptive-not-prescriptive nature of the content, and the index behavior when the topic is omitted. It stops short of saying what format the reference comes back in.

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?

Front-loaded with the version and purpose, then topics, then usage. Dense but each clause carries information; the topic enumeration is the only part that arguably repeats the schema.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, versioning, content nature, and index behavior. The only gap is the shape of the returned reference (e.g., markdown vs structured), which an agent must discover by calling.

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 100% and the enum fully enumerates topics, so the topic list in the description largely duplicates structured data. The one added nuance, that omitting topic returns an index, is also restated in the schema description, leaving the description with little net new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns the Strudel reference), pins the exact version (@strudel/repl 1.3.0) and the runtime context (the Moontide page), and clarifies the content type ('facts about what exists and how to write it, not what to choose'). No sibling tool competes with this purpose.

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?

Gives a concrete calling rule ('call it without a topic for the index') and a conditional prerequisite ('read tidal-differences before writing Strudel from Tidal habits'). It doesn't name alternatives, but none of the siblings overlap, so there is little to route against.

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