bourne_request_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful contextual value by identifying the specific artifact returned—'canonical ExecutionRequest version-2 JSON Schema'—and contains no contradictions.

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 entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple schema-retrieval tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. An agent knows exactly what it will receive and can invoke the tool without needing additional 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 and the input schema has 100% description coverage vacuously, so there are no hidden or undocumented arguments to explain. The description is not required to compensate for missing parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a concrete resource: Bourne's canonical ExecutionRequest version-2 JSON Schema. It is clearly distinct from siblings like bourne_validate_request or bourne_discover because it identifies the exact artifact and version being retrieved.

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 intended use is clear from the description: fetch Bourne's canonical ExecutionRequest v2 schema. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter schema-retrieval tool this ambiguity is minimal and the context is strong enough.

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