get_segments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It conveys the expansion/resolution behavior and the source of the refs, but does not explicitly state non-mutation, behavior on invalid refs, ordering, or other operational traits. The 'expand' wording implies a read-type operation, but explicit safety/error details are absent.

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 sentence, front-loads the core operation ('Expand'), and provides the essential provenance of the input tokens. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 documented schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the core contract well. It could additionally specify edge cases like invalid ref tokens or batch size limits, but for a straightforward expansion endpoint the current level of detail is nearly complete.

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 already provides a 100% descriptive description for the only parameter, refs. The tool description essentially repeats the same concept without adding new detail about format, limits, or examples, so it adds no meaningful semantic value 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 states a specific verb, 'Expand,' and a specific resource: opaque ref tokens from search/lookup into full datasheet segment content. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_specs or get_image by tying it directly to expanding search/lookup outputs.

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 strongly implies the usage context: call this when you have opaque ref tokens produced by search/lookup and need the underlying segment content. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over siblings.

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