common-get-item-reference-by-path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'gets item references' but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, performance considerations, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more structured by including usage hints or behavioral notes to improve clarity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves references. It does not explain the format or content of the returned references, potential limitations, or how results are presented. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's functionality.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (path, database, language, version) with their purposes and defaults. The description does not add any additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('item references for a Sitecore item by its path'), and it explains the output ('showing where it is used throughout the system'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-get-item-reference-by-id', which likely serves a similar purpose but uses an ID instead of a path, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'common-get-item-reference-by-id' for ID-based lookups or other reference-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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