get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return artifact (a draft-07 JSON Schema) and the contract version, and 'Return' plus zero parameters makes the read-only, side-effect-free nature evident. It doesn't describe error cases, but for a static schema fetch that is a minor omission.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the artifact and its standard, with the usage hint trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only schema-retrieval tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned and why. A note on sibling boundaries (schema vs. actual manifest data) would make it 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline a 4 is appropriate. The description correctly implies a parameterless call and spends its wording on what is returned instead.

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 (Return) and resource (JSON Schema draft-07 for the video_manifest envelope), and pins the contract version (schema_version 1.0). It is distinguishable from read_manifest by being the schema rather than the data, but it never explicitly names that sibling boundary.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('use it to validate or explore the output contract'), which tells the agent when the tool is relevant. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to alternatives like read_manifest for actual content.

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