type_archive.references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Query') and mentions 'incoming/outgoing references', but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, response format, or pagination. Minimal transparency.

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 short sentence, efficiently front-loaded but too sparse. While compact, it omits essential details, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more complete 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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters with zero documentation. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, how incoming/outgoing references are defined, or how to use the parameters. Very incomplete.

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 explain the parameters. The two required parameters (name, type_archive_id) are completely undocumented, leaving the agent with no guidance on their format, semantics, or expected values.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'archive incoming/outgoing references for one type', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like type_archive.create or type_archive.list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes what it does without any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to related tools (e.g., xref.code_refs_to, binary.functions).

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