Read CityJSON JSON Schema

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Fetch' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation, and 'canonical ... JSON Schema' identifies the domain. It does not describe the response shape, error behavior, or whether the raw JSON is returned directly, but these are low-risk details for a simple fetch.

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, tightly worded sentence with no wasted content. It front-loads the action, resource, version, and selection method immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with an enum and default in the schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent what is fetched and how selection works. It lacks explicit return-value or usage-context details, and there is no output schema, but the low complexity makes this an acceptable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only 'by name', which is minimal. However, the single 'name' parameter is fully constrained by an enum and a default in the input schema, so the parameter is still unambiguous. The description adds modest context by framing these as canonical CityJSON 2.0.2 schemas, but does not explain how to choose among the enum values.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), exact resource ('one canonical CityJSON 2.0.2 JSON Schema'), and selection mechanism ('by name'). The 'canonical' qualifier helps distinguish this from related schema or specification tools.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'canonical CityJSON 2.0.2' implies official schemas, but the agent is left to infer when to choose this over sibling tools like cityjson_extension_schema or cityjson_spec_read.

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