get_source_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only profile is established. The description adds that it reveals boards and accepted parameters but doesn't disclose whether the site must be registered/valid first or what happens for an unknown site identifier.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core function. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could arguably add a brief note about the site parameter for no length penalty.

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 has an output schema, which relieves the description of explaining return values. With one required parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description is borderline adequate. The main gap is the undocumented 'site' parameter meaning, which leaves the description slightly incomplete for a tool that exists to explain schemas.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and 1 required parameter, the description provides zero guidance on what the 'site' parameter should contain (e.g., an ID, a name, a label). The description mentions 'a source' but doesn't clarify how 'site' maps to a source or where to obtain valid site 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 uses a specific verb (Describe) with a clear resource scope (one source, its boards, and accepted parameters). It distinguishes itself somewhat from sibling list_sources by focusing on a single source's detailed schema rather than enumerating sources, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast with it.

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 conveys this is for exploring a specific source's structure (boards and parameters), which implies it should be used when you need details about one source rather than listing all sources. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs list_sources, or mention the required site parameter context.

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