stellar_xdr_json_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as returning a JSON Schema, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention error handling or non-existent types, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 of 11 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no waste.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fully self-contained. It states the output format and suggests a usage partner (stellar_xdr_encode), leaving no obvious gaps.

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 100% (the 'type' parameter is described in the schema). The tool description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a Draft-7 JSON Schema for a Stellar XDR type, with a verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like stellar_xdr_encode and stellar_xdr_types by noting its use with stellar_xdr_encode.

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 a clear usage context by mentioning 'use with stellar_xdr_encode', indicating when this tool should be employed. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to alternatives like stellar_xdr_guess.

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