cross_reference_thematic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the tool's purpose (find related passages) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior beyond the action remains opaque.

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, clear sentence of 14 words. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 the tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It fails to specify the output format (e.g., passages, references), whether both parameters can be used together, or any depth/limit. Additional detail would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions of each parameter (optional if the other is provided). The description adds that the tool finds topical/thematic passages, but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 finds topical/thematic related passages using a reference or topic keyword. It is specific with verb and resource but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cross_reference_tsk.

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 implies usage via reference or topic, and the schema clarifies they are optional if the other is provided. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor comparisons to alternatives.

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