Schema Explainer

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 states the tool 'explains' but does not mention whether it makes network calls, returns static information, or has side effects. It also doesn't specify the format or scope of the explanation (e.g., does it return text? a list?). The behavioral transparency is 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, which is concise)Skip, but it is also under-specified. It is not bloated, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. The structure is acceptable for a one-liner, but it lacks prioritization of key information.

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 no output schema Synd, no annotations, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'common field', what the response looks like, or how parameters influence the output. Agents would be uncertain about the exact behavior and may misuse the tool.

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 schema has two parameters (field, resource_type) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on what these parameters mean, how they filter the explanation, or their expected values beyond the enum for resource_type. It adds no semantic value over the bare schema.

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 states a clear purpose: explaining common OpenConstruction metadata fields and their locations in catalog records. It uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('metadata fields'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, its educational intent is distinct from the operational sibling tools (e.g., download, search, get), so the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether it should be consulted before calling other tools, or when to use it instead of, say, get_catalog_stats or search tools. The description implies a general use case but provides no context or exclusions.

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