erpnext_doctype_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those rather than contradicting them. The description adds the metadata categories returned but does not address error behavior, permissions, or data freshness; the safe, read-only profile is adequately covered by annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses a colon-separated list to enumerate details. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter metadata getter with rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and an existing output schema. The description covers what the tool returns, and the output schema handles return-value details, so nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 input schema has a bare 'doctype' string with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain the accepted format, case sensitivity, or examples. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory within ERPNext, but the description adds almost no semantic value beyond the 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 specific action ('Return') and resource ('ERPNext DocType metadata'), then enumerates exact contents: fields, required fields, child tables, links, and docstatus support. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling doc CRUD/list tools like erpnext_doc_get and erpnext_doc_list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or contrast with any sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and purpose.

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