ftrack_query_schemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Query' implies a read-only operation, it does not mention return format, potential limits, or any other behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that fetches all schemas.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Query'). It contains no unnecessary words and is entirely on-topic, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what the query returns. It does not specify the structure or purpose of entity schemas, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low complexity, a 3 is appropriate—adequate but with a noticeable gap.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, the description adequately covers this aspect, deserving a 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Query' and identifies a clear resource: 'all available entity schemas'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftrack_query and ftrack_parse_query, which focus on entities and query parsing respectively.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the function without any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, providing no actionable direction for an agent.

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