sn_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data; 'introspect' is consistent with that. The description adds nothing beyond the annotation about result size, pagination/limit behavior, or whether introspection reflects cached vs live metadata.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first, followed by a compact action cheat-sheet. No filler; every clause carries an action meaning.

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 an output schema exists (return values need not be described), read-only annotations covering safety, and an action dispatch model fully enumerated, the description supplies enough for an agent to pick the right mode. Remaining param-to-action binding gaps are the only shortfall.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps the four action enum values to behaviors, but leaves name, table, pattern, and limit unlinked to specific actions (e.g., which action consumes 'pattern', or that 'limit' caps table listing), leaving real ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Introspect the instance's data model', which distinguishes metadata exploration from the data-access siblings like sn_read. It then enumerates the four modes of introspection, so the agent can tell what the tool covers without opening the schema.

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 action list implies when each mode is used (tables to list, fields for a dictionary, class for CMDB, references for field usage), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings such as sn_read or sn_admin for overlapping lookups.

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