get_object_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to highlight that the object_type is constrained to a single value (automation). It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks any structure or additional detail that would help an agent. Every sentence should earn its place; this one is too minimal to be fully useful.

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 the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description still needs to explain the tool's purpose and constraints. It fails to mention the restriction to automation, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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% (the parameter has a description and an example). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool retrieves a schema for an object type, which is clear but overly generic. It does not mention that the only supported object_type is 'automation', making it less precise than it could be. It loosely distinguishes from siblings that retrieve instances (e.g., get_flows) rather than schemas.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify that it is limited to the 'automation' type, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or use cases. An agent would have no help deciding to use this over sibling tools.

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