get_subjects_by_schema_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the core query and does not disclose return shape, whether all versions or only latest are returned, not-found behavior, or how the optional registry parameter affects results.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The key operation and input are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description gives only a coarse statement of the result: 'subjects and versions.' It is minimally viable for a two-parameter lookup, but it omits output structure and edge-case behavior that would make the tool fully self-explanatory.

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 both parameters completely, including the integer schema_id and the optional registry with its default behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter detail, but it also adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 states a concrete action and resource: 'Get subjects and versions' keyed by a schema ID. It is clearly distinct from closely named siblings like get_schema_by_id and list_subjects, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 the use case: call this when you have a schema_id and need the subjects and versions associated with it. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as get_schema_by_id or get_schema_versions.

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