Fetch a selected REA tool's full input schema and example as markdown to inspect required arguments before invoking it.
Get one REA tool's full input schema and example as markdown text. Use after rea_search, before rea_call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact REA tool name from rea_search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is markdown containing a full input schema and example, which implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or any other operational traits.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by precise workflow placement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: the full input schema and example as markdown text. Minor gaps include failure behavior when the tool name is not found, but the core context is complete.
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%, and the single parameter is already documented as 'Exact REA tool name from rea_search.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one REA tool's full input schema and example as markdown text.' It clearly distinguishes the deliverable from search or call operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from rea_investigate.
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?
It gives explicit sequencing: 'Use after rea_search, before rea_call.' This tells the agent exactly where the tool fits in the workflow and when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.