beel_schema_get

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail about the response: fields carry type, required/optional, enum values and one-line descriptions, and 'schemas a declaration references are named, not expanded'. That last clause prevents a wrong expectation about recursive expansion.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output format, then the input modes, then a key caveat about unexpanded references. Dense but each sentence carries non-redundant information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the declaration shape and the non-expansion behavior. With all three parameters documented at 100% coverage and the safety profile in annotations, the definition is essentially complete for a read-only introspection tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving concrete examples for each mode and clarifying the relationship between the parameters (single name, several names, or a substring query that returns matching names), which the schema descriptions only sketch.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the fields of API request and response schemas') and precisely characterizes the output format ('compact TypeScript-like declarations from the OpenAPI contract'). This is a meta/introspection tool, and the description makes clear it is not a data-fetch sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from the many beel_get_* resource tools.

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?

Explains the three accepted input modes: schema names, tool names/operationIds, and a substring query that 'lists names'. That is clear operational context, but it stops short of explicit when-not guidance or pointing at alternatives (e.g. beel_docs_get / beel_docs_search for narrative docs).

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