getToolInfo

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 only states the get-like behavior and does not mention whether the operation is strictly read-only, how missing or invalid source/tool values behave, or what the returned schema looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, and the structure wastes no space.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent is left to guess what a 'source' is, how to find valid source/tool identifiers, and how this tool fits into the search-then-call workflow suggested by the sibling names.

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%, but the phrase 'for a specific tool on a source' gives meaning to the two string parameters tool and source. It adds some value beyond the raw schema, yet it does not explain acceptable formats, where valid source identifiers come from, or how tool names should be specified.

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?

States a specific verb ('get') and resource ('full parameter schema for a specific tool on a source'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings searchTools and callTool, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The intended usage can be inferred from the sibling names: use this to inspect a tool's schema before calling it, but that is implied rather than stated.

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