Get Source Schema

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

With empty annotations, the description carries burden. It accurately describes the tool as retrieval ('Get'), but does not disclose any potential side effects, error behaviors (e.g., if source does not exist), or auth requirements, which limits transparency.

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 sentence of 18 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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), the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the tool's action and the parameter. However, it could explicitly mention the return format (e.g., 'returns schema and capabilities JSON'), but overall it covers the essential context.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get' and the resource 'schema and capabilities for a specific knowledge source', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'search-knowledge' and 'list-sources' by focusing on a specific source's schema.

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 implies usage when you need schema for a specific source, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-knowledge' or 'list-sources', nor does it mention conditions or prerequisites.

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