document_get_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not mention side effects, error scenarios (e.g., schema not found), or dependencies beyond the session parameter already in the schema. Adequate for a simple read, but minimal.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word adds value; no extraneous information. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should hint at the return value. 'Full content' is vague and does not clarify whether the result is a JSON schema object or something else. No mention of error handling or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple tool but missing some context.

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%, so the input schema already explains both 'name' and 'session' parameters well. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating 'by name', which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a specific schema definition by name with its full content' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (schema definition), and the specific qualifiers (by name, full content). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like document_list_schemas (list) and document_add_schema (add).

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 usage when needing a single schema's full content, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., document_list_schemas for browsing) or any prerequisites. The context is implicit, not explicit.

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