pc_get_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists topics without stating whether the tool is read-only, requires auth, or what the output format is. Important traits like non-mutating behavior or potential rate limits for the tool itself are omitted.

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 one sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and lists the available topics. No redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the main aspects. However, it lacks information about the output format (e.g., plain text, JSON) and whether pagination or formatting options exist. Still, it adequately informs an agent about what the tool provides.

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 single parameter 'topic' has enum values, and the description explicitly maps five categories (base-urls, headers, etc.) to the tool's offerings. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds essential meaning. Still, it could briefly explain each option's usage for extra clarity.

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 provides 'REST reference' for Partner Center, listing specific topics like base URLs and headers. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'pc_generate_call' or 'pc_get_scenario'. However, it could be more explicit that it returns static documentation rather than performing actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain that 'pc_get_reference' is for reference info while 'pc_get_scenario' is for step-by-step scenarios. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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