get_schema

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral signal; it implies a read-only lookup but does not state side effects, output format, or any constraints. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds no behavioral context beyond the bare operation.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No filler.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but the enum mismatch (step missing) creates a real gap in completeness. It also fails to clarify what 'RunOptions' corresponds to in the enum, though 'run_options' is a close mapping.

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 single 'kind' parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and the description only loosely maps to four of the five enum values without naming the parameter. It does not mention 'step', so an agent could not infer the full set of valid inputs from the description.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: returning JSON schemas for four named domain types, which distinguishes it from sibling action tools. However, the input schema's enum also includes 'step', which the description omits, so the stated scope is not fully aligned.

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 intended use is implied—call this when you need the JSON schema for one of the listed types—but there is no explicit 'use when' guidance or comparison to alternatives. Since get_schema is unique among siblings, no exclusion is stated.

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