mimicus_get_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those: it returns source-native classifications, original URLs, provenance and remote preview links, and explicitly states there is no disk snapshot fallback. That fallback disclosure is the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core action leads. The second sentence is terse and slightly cryptic, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out — yet the description spends its budget enumerating return content rather than the two undocumented required parameters. For a read-only retrieval tool this is workable but leaves a real gap around the identifier semantics.

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% for two required string parameters (operationId, referenceId), so the description carries the full burden of documenting them. It mentions neither, leaving the agent with no explanation of what an operationId or referenceId is, where they come from, or whether the reference must belong to the active operation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('an active discovery candidate'), scoped to 'active' candidates, and the added clause 'No disk snapshot fallback' implicitly separates it from a cached/snapshot variant. It is clear what the tool does, though sibling names like mimicus_open_reference are not explicitly differentiated, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over sibling tools such as mimicus_open_reference, mimicus_explore_page, or mimicus_search. The 'No disk snapshot fallback' clause implies a boundary condition but does not name the alternative or the situation that selects it.

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