workspace_get_reference_expansion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read and that it works without network access, which is meaningful. However, it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or what happens when the run_id is invalid or missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence starting with the verb 'Read'. It contains no filler and each phrase ('saved graph', 'counts', 'decisions', 'continuation actions', 'without network') adds distinct information.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, this is reasonably complete: it names the output categories and the offline behavior. However, without an output schema or annotations, and with many related sibling tools, the agent would benefit from more detail on how 'saved graph, counts, decisions and continuation actions' are structured and how this tool relates to other reference-expansion tools.

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 0%, and the description does not mention run_id at all. The parameter is simple and the schema title 'Run Id' provides some meaning, but the description adds no semantics about how run_id relates to the saved graph or how it identifies the expansion.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and names a specific resource: 'saved graph, counts, decisions and continuation actions'. It distinguishes itself from the write/action-oriented siblings like workspace_create_reference_expansion and workspace_decide_reference_expansion by being read-only and offline. It does not explicitly mention 'reference expansion' in the description, but the tool name supplies that context.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_list_reference_expansions, workspace_get_result, or workspace_resolve_external_reference. The phrase 'without network' hints at an offline use case, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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