parseltongue_dsl_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation (getting reference docs), but doesn't state the size or format of the returned string, whether it's cached, whether network access is needed, or any mutation. The read-only nature is only implied, not explicit, and with zero annotations this is a gap.

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 concise with two short sentences. The 'Returns: Full DSL reference as a string' is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but it's not bloated. It's appropriately sized for a documentation-fetch tool, though front-loading could be marginally improved.

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 documentation reference tool with 0 parameters and an output schema, the description is largely adequate. However, it could mention that this is the foundational reference for using the other parseltongue_* tools, which would help establish workflow context. The completeness is acceptable given the tool's simplicity, but leaves the relationship to sibling tools unstated.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there's nothing for the description to elaborate on. With 100% schema description coverage and no parameters to document, the input schema fully defines the tool's inputs. Baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 it 'Gets the Parseltongue DSL reference documentation' with a specific verb+resource. It's distinguishable from siblings since no other tool would fetch DSL reference docs. However, the 'Returns: Full DSL reference as a string' section is somewhat redundant with the output schema present, and it doesn't differentiate from what siblings like parseltongue_load_dsl might offer, which could be a complementary action.

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?

There's no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't clarify when an agent should consult this reference vs. loading the DSL (parseltongue_load_dsl) or when it's appropriate to reference the documentation during a workflow. The context implies it's for understanding the DSL, but no explicit trigger conditions or alternatives are mentioned.

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