get_reference_jsx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key trait: the returned JSX is a reference, not actual site markup, which prevents misinterpretation. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the id is invalid, or whether any authentication is required. For a simple getter, the disclosure of the 'reference-only' nature adds value, but it leaves other aspects unaddressed.

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, concise sentence that delivers the core function and a clarifying note. There is no filler, and the most important information (returns JSX by id) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making this an exemplary concise description.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the resource and the key differentiator (reference vs. actual markup). It does not mention potential error conditions or return format, but given the simplicity, these may be minor. The description provides enough context for an agent to make a correct call in most situations.

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 has 100% description coverage for the 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description simply repeats that the JSX is retrieved 'by id' without adding any new syntax, format, or example beyond what the schema provides. At the baseline of 3, this is appropriate since the parameter is fully self‑explanatory in the schema.

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 function: 'オリジナルの参照JSXを id で返します' (returns the original reference JSX by id). It specifies a verb (returns), a resource (reference JSX), and the key parameter (id). The additional clause '実在サイトのマークアップではありません' (this is not the markup of an actual site) helps set expectations but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools, many of which also operate on JSX or site-related data. It is more specific than a tautology and provides a clear purpose, though sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or pointers to sibling tools like get_jp_copy_patterns or get_jp_form_spec. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and the fact that it expects an id. This is a clear gap given the presence of nine related tools.

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