get_object_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. It mentions that 'Schemas contain related object types', adding some context about the data structure, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of schema names vs. full details). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all object schemas') and adds necessary context ('available in the JSM Assets workspace') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, output format), and differentiation from siblings. For a basic list tool, this is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids redundant parameter details, and the baseline score for zero parameters is 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps in schema 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all object schemas') with context ('available in the JSM Assets workspace'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_object_types' or 'get_object_attributes', which might have overlapping scopes, preventing 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_object_types' or 'search_assets_aql'. It lacks explicit instructions on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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