get-all-schemas

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. However, it only states the operation ('get all class schemas') without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, response format, pagination, or authentication requirements. The description lacks depth for a tool with zero annotations.

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, concise sentence of nine words that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the core purpose. It could benefit from noting the return structure or any limitations, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description largely complete. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap here.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4 since there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 tool's function with the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all class schemas', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get-schema' that likely targets a single schema. The scope ('all') is explicit and unambiguous.

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 the user needs all class schemas, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like 'get-schema' for individual schemas. The guidance is minimal and relies on the word 'all' to convey context.

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