Get Schema Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a 'brief summary' and a 'path to its cached JSON file' rather than the full content directly, and indicates the file contains a 'complete deep-resolved definition' with specific elements. This aligns with annotations and adds value.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the action and output; the second provides a clear next step. The enumeration of contained elements ('all properties, types, required fields, enums, defaults, nested structures') is somewhat detailed but clarifies what the cached file holds, earning its place.

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 tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (summary + file path) and how to proceed to get the full definition. It does not mention error handling for unknown schema names, but the core usage is covered, making it complete enough for practical use.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter 'name' with a description and examples: 'Schema/model name (e.g. 'User', 'OrderResponse')'. The tool description reinforces that it targets a 'specific schema/model' but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 the tool's function: 'Get a brief summary of a specific schema/model and the path to its cached JSON file containing the complete deep-resolved definition.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('schema/model'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like swagger_list_schemas (which lists all schemas) by focusing on a single named schema and returning a file path.

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 explicit follow-up guidance: 'Use the Read tool on the returned file path to see the full schema.' This tells the agent what to do after calling the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of the highest rating.

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