get_doctype_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does disclose that this is a read operation and that visibility is through Frappe's API (implying permission-based results). However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and explicit read-only confirmation beyond the verb 'Read'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently states the core action and scope without 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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema that covers return values. Still, the description leaves the parameter undocumented and provides no usage context, which prevents it from being fully self-contained despite the low complexity.

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 0% and the description never mentions the required 'doctype' parameter directly. The agent can infer that the parameter expects a DocType name, but no details on format, case sensitivity, or naming conventions are added beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 has a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('DocType schema and field metadata'), clearly distinguishing it from document-level siblings like get_document. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_doctypes, which also deals with doctypes, leaving a minor inference gap.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g., 'use this before create_document to learn fields'), and no prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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