get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral trait: the tool returns compact guidance by default and 'full' is a last resort, which hints at output size/performance trade-offs. However, it does not explain what 'compact guidance' means, what the output structure is, or why 'full' is a last resort (e.g., expensive, verbose). The description does not contradict 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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence is front-loaded with the main guidance, but it lacks the substance needed to be useful. It earns a 3 because it is not bloated, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 has an output schema, which may explain return values, but the description still fails to explain the tool's core purpose, the meaning of the fragment parameter, or the role of include_dependencies. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The output schema presence lowers the burden for return values, but the input semantics remain unclear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters, but it only mentions fragment='full' without explaining the fragment parameter's purpose or valid values. It does not mention include_dependencies at all. The schema provides only types and defaults, leaving the agent to guess what fragment and include_dependencies control. This is a significant gap.

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 'Return compact guidance; use fragment='full' only as a last resort' is vague about what the tool actually does. It mentions returning guidance and a fragment parameter, but does not state the resource (schema) or a clear verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_spec or get_spec_template, and the purpose is only inferable from the tool name.

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 gives a weak usage hint: use fragment='full' only as a last resort. This implies a preference for compact output but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_spec or get_spec_template. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of what fragment values are available or what 'full' means.

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