dsl_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 disclosing behavior. It adds meaningful context about category semantics (e.g., 'concepts' including object variables, message params) and implies a read-only lookup action. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, describe return format, or mention any side effects. This is a gap since annotations are absent, but the nature of a reference tool is inferred.

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 consists of two sentences that are densely informative. The first sentence states the purpose; the second lists categories and explains the 'concepts' category. Every phrase contributes essential information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description together with the schema covers the core usage and category options. It lacks explicit details about the return format (e.g., structured list vs. free text), but for a reference documentation tool this is a minor gap. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The description adds slight value by elaborating on certain category meanings (notably 'concepts') and suggesting that 'all' provides a complete syntax reference, which is already in the schema. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the enum descriptions already provide, warranting the baseline score.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get reference documentation for the Purl DSL scripting language.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on project/script management by explicitly framing this as a documentation/lookup tool. The mention of queryable categories and 'full syntax reference' further specifies scope.

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 explains how to use the tool ('Query by category... or get the full syntax reference') and clarifies what the 'concepts' category covers. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you need DSL documentation' or list alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to choose this tool over siblings like get_script or validate_script.

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