ref_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool queries a repo on the same machine, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose error handling, permissions, or behavior for invalid repo paths. The disclosure is moderate but lacks detail.

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 two sentences—concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word 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?

The description covers the main purpose and use context, but given the 6 parameters and no output schema, it lacks details about return format, behavior with different modes, or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema adequately documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the high-level purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it queries a reference repository on the same machine for architecture insights, design patterns, conventions, or code examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., semantic_search, find_pattern) by focusing on an external repo rather than the current workspace.

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 indicates it is useful 'for borrowing context from a well-structured sibling repo when working on the current workspace,' providing a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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