get_expression_reference

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns a static cheat-sheet (read-only, no side effects), and specifies the output structure. It also mentions a specific encoding hint. However, it omits potential details like whether the content can change or any access limitations, though for a simple reference tool this is acceptable.

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: first states what it returns, second gives usage advice and a specific hint. Both sentences are essential and front-loaded. No 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 tool has no parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains what it returns (categories and structure) and when to use it (textbox/filter expression authoring). It also includes a practical encoding hint. This is complete for its complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info (none needed), but it adds value by describing the content and usage context, which 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 the tool returns a static cheat-sheet of common RDL expression patterns, listing categories (globals, parameters, fields, etc.) and the structure of each entry (name, syntax, example, description). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all about editing report components, not providing reference.

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 authoring a textbox value or filter expression instead of guessing', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes an encoding hint for the `&` concat operator, adding practical usage detail.

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