admin_get_reference_info

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

The description indicates the tool reads a 'cached reference' and returns a dictionary excluding the value, implying a read-only operation. With no annotations provided, this covers basic behavioral expectations but omits details on error handling, performance, or whether the cache is local or distributed. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences plus an Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second warns of admin restriction, and the parameter/return descriptions are precise. 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 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameter meaning, admin restriction, and return structure (dictionary, value not included). It does not mention possible exceptions or state whether the reference must exist, but for a simple retrieval tool, it is largely complete.

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 provides only a parameter name and type (string) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'ref_id: The reference ID to look up.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could elaborate on the format or expected length.

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 'Get detailed information about a cached reference,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. Among sibling admin tools like admin_list_references (lists many) and admin_delete_reference (deletes), this tool uniquely retrieves details for a single reference, distinguishing it effectively.

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 explicitly notes 'ADMIN ONLY - Requires elevated permissions,' providing a critical usage constraint. It also outlines the return as a dictionary without the value. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but the admin flag provides sufficient guidance for intended audience.

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