get_framework_reference

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 disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the tool auto-detects the framework from the project and returns a structured set of documentation (API reference, patterns, common mistakes). For a read-only reference tool, this is substantial, though it does not explicitly state it has no side effects or permissions.

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, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the verb and resource, and the second elaborates with mode and output details. No fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 tool has only two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it decides the framework, and what it returns. It could improve by explicitly mentioning when to prefer this over sibling documentation tools, but it is otherwise reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters, providing names and descriptions. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, though it reinforces the auto-detect vs. explicit-name relationship. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get framework-specific AI reference documentation.' It specifies the resource (framework reference) and the action (get). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docs' or 'get_usage_guide', so it lacks explicit 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 context about usage modes: auto-detection from project or explicit framework name. It implies the tool is used when framework-specific reference is needed, but it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools. Thus, it offers clear context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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