rosetta_scripts_schema

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds that the tool generates and caches the schema, implying file system writes. It also notes the prerequisite of a local installation. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it could detail caching behavior more.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding a use case and requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is highly efficient.

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 3 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, optional behavior, and a key prerequisite (local installation). It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention the output format (XSD content) more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions 'optionally extract element names' which aligns with the 'extract_elements' parameter, but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 generates and caches the RosettaScripts XML schema, with an option to extract element names. It identifies a specific resource (XML schema/XSD) and a clear action (generate/cache). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'validate_xml' or 'get_cached_docs'.

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 mentions 'Use to get the authoritative list of valid XML elements' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cached_docs' or 'validate_xml'. The usage context is implied rather than specified with exclusions or alternatives.

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