get_data_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but does not explicitly say it is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens on failure. It lacks details like auth requirements or response structure, which is a gap for an agent needing safety expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and the second sentence adds immediate value by explaining why an agent would call it.

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 zero-parameter input and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is largely complete. It could briefly mention that the schema describes traces, observations, or other entities, but the current wording is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role within the broader context.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, which is appropriate. The 'fields and data types' phrasing hints at the output but not parameters, which is fine.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the data schema for the Langfuse project.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_prompt or fetch_traces. The scope is unambiguous.

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 adds 'Useful for understanding available fields and data types,' which implies the intended use case. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, the context is clear for a schema retrieval tool with no obvious competing sibling.

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