get_pql_reference

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the two modes (full vs brief), including payload size implications and the exact return structure, giving the agent a complete picture of what to expect.

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 and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, a clear usage directive, and tersely documented args/returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

As a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers all necessary information: purpose, usage context, parameter options, and return format. It is fully self-contained and does not rely on external schemas beyond what's already provided.

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?

While the schema merely lists an enum with default, the description adds rich semantics: it defines what 'full' and 'brief' return, including content details and payload trade-offs. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Return the Plane Query Language (PQL) syntax reference,' identifying the specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on PQL reference, not on any other operation.

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 says 'Call this when composing the `pql` filter for' and lists the exact sibling tools that require it, providing clear when-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned because this tool is unique, but the context leaves no ambiguity.

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