get_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions automatic $ref resolution, but omits critical behaviors such as how maxDepth limits resolution depth, how includeCircular handles circular references, and what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap given the tool's complexity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the key feature of $ref resolution. No unnecessary words, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite a fully documented schema, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description is too brief to explain how parameters like maxDepth and includeCircular affect the result or what the response structure is. Sibling tools are not addressed, and the behavior around circular references and depth is left unclear, making the description incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains all four parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters and their defaults.

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 retrieves the complete schema definition and automatically resolves all $ref references, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_schemas or get_swagger_overview. The verb '獲取' and resource 'schema' are explicit, and the $ref resolution detail adds specificity beyond 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 implies usage when a full schema definition with resolved references is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_schemas or get_swagger_overview. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the usage context to be inferred.

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