tvh_get_schema

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes fields, types, defaults and options, which is useful, but with an output schema present there is little left for the description to disclose.

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?

One compact sentence with the return content front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing — no filler at all.

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 single-parameter, read-only introspection tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key missing piece (class-name provenance). It could be richer about how this differs from sibling schema/introspection tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone class_name parameter. It does so by stating where valid class names come from (list_classes or hardware_tree), which is real meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('fields/types/defaults/options for a class'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as tvh_get_field_options or tvh_mux_schema.

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?

By naming list_classes and hardware_tree as the ways to find a class, it defines the prerequisite step and implies the correct workflow. It stops short of stating exclusions — e.g. when to prefer get_field_options instead.

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