copalibre_descriptor_schema

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

With no annotations the description carries full burden, and it does well: it discloses the output is byte-identical to what validation and installation enforce (a meaningful consistency guarantee) and that no API token is required (auth requirement). It does not state read-only/non-mutating behavior or caching, but 'Returns' plus the zero-param schema make that clear.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the routing instruction, then the auth note. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 zero-param, read-only schema introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (JSON Schema plus field-level explanation), when to call it, and the auth situation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to add or explain. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the discipline descriptor's machine-readable JSON Schema') plus the added payload ('field-by-field explanation of what each declaration governs'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming copalibre_descriptor_validate and positioning itself against copalibre_profile_schema's domain.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use this first when authoring a new discipline module, before writing any JSON.' That tells the agent when to pick this over writing JSON blind, and the mention of descriptor_validate implies the validation counterpart. It stops short of naming the profile_schema sibling as the alternative for profile authoring.

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