get_oscal_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains default behavior (returns JSON schema, default model_name='complete' returns all-models schema) and warns about large context consumption. However, it does not mention error handling for invalid model names or prerequisites, though these are minor omissions.

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 concisely structured: first sentence states purpose, then usage guidance, then warning, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (schema retrieval with two parameters and large outputs), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, defaults, a critical warning, and cross-reference to list_models. The output schema is provided separately, so return format needs no further detail. Complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description adds critical meaning. It explains that model_name defaults to 'complete' (returning all models, large), and schema_type controls format (json vs XSD). It also suggests using list_models for valid model names, which is not in the schema. This far exceeds the schema's minimal info.

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 returns the schema for a specified OSCAL model, with a verb 'returns' and resource 'schema for specified OSCAL model'. It distinguishes itself by suggesting using list_models for valid model names, and no sibling tool performs the same function.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Try this tool first for any questions about the structure of OSCAL models.' It warns against requesting the 'complete' schema unless necessary due to size, and directs users to list_models for valid names. This gives clear when-to-use and exclusions.

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