server.jsonc schema

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the tool exposes the schema used by the dedicated server and that the key filters to a section, which is useful context. It does not cover behavior when no key is provided, but this is a minor gap given the simple read-only nature.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the parameter usage in the same sentence. Slightly more structure could separate the full-schema behavior from the filtered behavior, but it remains concise and readable.

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 one-parameter read-only schema tool, the description covers the main purpose and key filtering. However, with no output schema and no mention of the behavior when key is omitted, an agent may not know whether calling without a key returns the full schema or errors. This ambiguity prevents a higher completeness score.

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 schema provides only a bare 'key' string with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that key should be a top-level configuration section such as network, resources, warden, or voice, and that it filters the schema to that section. It does not state what happens if key is omitted, but the core semantics are well conveyed.

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 identifies the tool as providing the JSON schema used to validate server.jsonc, which distinguishes it from siblings like open77_manifest_schema. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves', relying on the noun phrase 'The JSON schema' to convey the action.

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 explains how to use the tool ('Pass a top-level key... for that section only') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as open77_manifest_schema or open77_validate. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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