edict_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (JSON Schema) and hints at different formats, but it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response structure. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding, though the core functionality is 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?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It covers the basic purpose and a usage tip, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or response format. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'format' parameter fully documented including enum values and a default. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the 'agent' format as recommended for bootstrapping, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Return the JSON Schema defining valid Edict AST programs.' This specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('JSON Schema defining valid Edict AST programs'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'edict_validate' or 'edict_lint' that might also involve schema-related operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool by specifying 'Use format 'agent' for one-call bootstrapping (minimal schema + compact maps + builtins + effects).' This gives a recommended usage scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'edict_validate' for validation instead of schema retrieval.

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