get_sdk_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Returns' and 'Mirrors sdk/SDK_FOR_MCP.md', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication requirements, or caching behavior. The description focuses on content coverage rather than operational behavior.

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 long but well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then enumerating coverage areas in a clear list. Each service and section listed adds value for an agent deciding whether this reference contains the needed information, so the length is justified.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: version, source file, and an exhaustive list of covered services and sections. It is complete for a reference retrieval tool, leaving no ambiguity about what the agent will get.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully describes its interface. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given there are no parameters to describe. Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description meets that baseline.

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 'Returns the complete @symbo.ls/sdk API reference (3.14.0).' This specifies the verb, resource, and version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cli_reference. The detailed enumeration of services and sections further clarifies exactly what the agent will receive.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve the SDK API reference but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_cli_reference or search_symbols_docs. It mentions that it mirrors a specific file, which gives some context, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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