get_schema

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 'live' network-backed fetch, the API key requirement, and the return content, which covers the key operational expectations. It does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or response size, but for a straightforward schema-fetch operation the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and packs the credential requirement into the second sentence, so it is both minimal and effective.

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 simple read-only schema-fetching tool with no output schema, the description covers the main call behavior, success return contents, and the authentication need. It is not fully complete because it doesn't mention that a full schema dump could be large or that the filter parameter shapes the output, but the schema already documents filtering adequately.

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%, and both filter and api_key have detailed descriptions in the input schema itself. The tool description adds no special parameter semantics beyond reaffirming the API key requirement, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Fetches the live monday.com GraphQL schema and returns type definitions, available queries, and mutations.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_query, validate_query, and explain_error.

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 an agent needs to inspect or work with the monday.com GraphQL schema, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Since the tool's purpose is inherently clear, it earns a 3 rather than a 2, but explicit guidance would be better.

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