get_tool_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the command returns the schema but does not disclose error handling (e.g., if tool not found), idempotency, or authentication requirements. The simple 'get' verb implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicit.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main purpose, one for usage context, and a short args section. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but context confirms existence), the description adequately covers the parameter and the overall purpose. It could mention error cases, but per rules, the output schema handles return value documentation.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the 'name' parameter must be the 'Exact tool name (as returned by search_tools)'. Since schema coverage is 0% (no description in schema), this contextual hint is valuable and directs the agent to obtain the correct value from a sibling tool.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the full schema of a specific tool by name.' It specifies the action (get) and the resource (full schema of a tool), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_tools (which lists tools) and execute_tool (which runs a tool).

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 explicitly advises: 'Use this after search_tools() to get complete parameter details for a tool you want to call.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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