get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resolves opaque refs into full segment content, implying a non-destructive read/expansion operation. It does not discuss failure behavior, ordering, or permissions, which is a modest 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?

A single sentence front-loads the action, the input origin, and the output type with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's 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?

With one required parameter, a fully described schema, and an output schema present, the tool is largely complete for a simple ref-expansion operation. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit alternative-tool routing, but the 'from search/lookup' signal already orients the agent.

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 100%, so the refs parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description essentially restates that information without adding meaningful new semantics beyond 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 names a specific action ('Expand') and resource ('full datasheet segment content'), and clarifies the input tokens come from search/lookup. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search, lookup, compare_parts, and get_image.

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 phrase 'from search/lookup' tells an agent this is the follow-up tool for expanding opaque refs obtained from those operations. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives like get_specs/get_image, but the intended usage context is clear.

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