refero_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching behavior and acceptable input types. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or describe failure modes (e.g., no match found), but the intention is clear and no contradictions exist.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value—first sentence states purpose, second sentence details input flexibility and matching algorithm.

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 no output schema, the description could mention what the tool returns (e.g., JSON object of the design system), but for a simple fetch operation, the description is sufficiently complete. The context of sibling tools helps, and the tool is straightforward.

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 already describes the 'identifier' parameter as 'uuid, hostname/URL, or site name' (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining fuzzy matching (Levenshtein distance 2) and giving an example, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 the tool fetches "the full design system for a single style," specifying the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full design system for a single style'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like refero_list (list all), refero_search (search), and refero_similar (find similar), which have different purposes.

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 lists acceptable input formats (uuid, hostname/URL, site name) and provides an example ("Cursor"). It also mentions fuzzy matching with Levenshtein distance 2, giving clear guidance on how the identifier will be resolved, which helps the agent choose correct inputs.

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