get_schema_file_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.

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's front-loaded and directly states the purpose, though it could be more specific. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification given the lack of other details.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contents' means (e.g., file data format), behavioral aspects like permissions or errors, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool with 4 parameters and read operation, more context is needed to ensure proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (apiId, schemaId, filePath, versionId) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are needed to locate the file, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get contents of a schema file' clearly states the action (get) and resource (schema file contents), but it's somewhat vague about what 'contents' entails (e.g., raw text, structured data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_api_schema_files' (which likely lists files) but not explicitly, and doesn't specify scope beyond the file.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention how it differs from 'get_api_schema' or 'get_api_schema_files', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context. The description alone offers no usage context.

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