getSchemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the two behavioral modes (list all vs. return complete schema), but it fails to mention potential error behavior (e.g., what happens if the schema name does not exist), authentication requirements, or the exact structure of the response. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, then economically explains the parameter-dependent behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content. It is concise and well-structured.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still leaves some gaps. It states what is returned in broad terms ('liste tous les schémas' and 'schéma complet') but does not clarify the exact return format (e.g., array of names vs. full definitions) or how errors are handled. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more precise return information.

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 input schema already documents the single optional parameter 'schemaName' with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics by explicitly stating that omitting the parameter lists all schemas and providing it returns the complete schema. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'optionnel' label.

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 retrieves data schemas (DTOs) defined in the API, with a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource. It explains the two modes: no parameter lists all schemas, and with a name returns the complete schema. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'getSchemaReferences', so it misses the top score.

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 context: use without parameter to list all schemas, or with a name to get a specific schema. This is clear context but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'getSchemaReferences', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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