cross_reference

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or requires specific permissions. The phrase 'cognitive reasoning' is abstract and unhelpful.

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 short and front-loaded, conveying the alias and a high-level purpose in one sentence. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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's complexity (cross-referencing memories), the description is incomplete—no mention of return format, pagination, performance implications, or limitations. The alias reference shifts burden to deep_reference's description, which is not evaluated here.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information 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?

Description states it is an alias for deep_reference and 'connect the dots across memories with cognitive reasoning,' but the purpose remains vague—it does not specify exactly what operation is performed (e.g., retrieval, comparison, inference).

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 explicitly notes it is an alias for deep_reference, implying interchangeability, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over other siblings like search or explore_connections.

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