get_schema

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get schema information' without mentioning that it is read-only, what the return format looks like, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name implies.

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 sentence that starts with the verb 'Get', making it direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose, and there is no wasted language.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and how it fits into the broader workflow. It only says 'schema information' without elaborating on the structure or usage context, which is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and role among sibling tools.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'resource' with examples, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra clarification is needed.

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 action (get schema information) and the resource (a Business Central resource), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on items. The verb 'Get' is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is useful for discovering the structure of a resource before performing item operations, nor does it name any alternative tools. This leaves the agent without contextual direction.

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