get_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those flags: it is a mirror of MCP Resources, and omitting both category and name triggers the listing behavior. This gives an agent the operational expectations without repeating the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the first defines what the tool returns, the second gives the compatibility rationale, and the third explains the two discovery modes. Front-loaded with the verb and object, no fluff.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with rich annotations and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the main invocation paths and even the no-arguments fallback. It lacks an explicit statement about what happens if only category or only name is passed, and no output schema exists to fill that gap, so it is not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics on top: it explains that list=true or omitting both optional parameters returns (category, name) pairs, and gives concrete examples like 'alerts' and 'operators' for the name parameter. The only ambiguity is the behavior when exactly one of category/name is supplied, which prevents a 5.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and object ('Get LogicMonitor reference content') and enumerates the categories (schemas, enums, filters, syntax, guide), making the tool's scope unmistakable. The additional note that it mirrors MCP Resources distinguishes it from data-facing siblings like get_datasource or get_device, which fetch operational data rather than reference material.

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 gives a clear use condition: use this tool when the client lacks full MCP Resource support (Copilot cloud agent, OpenAI Codex, Cline). It also explains the list-vs-content invocation modes. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it or contrasting with a sibling tool, so it loses one point.

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