hydra_describe_operation

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the return value is the full schema with every parameter, type, and default, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as errors or availability.

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?

Two sentences with no repetition: the first states the return contract and the second gives routing guidance. The core information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only description tool with an output schema, the definition is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and when to use it over the sibling. The main gaps are the vague trigger condition and no explicit statement about where accepted operation names come from.

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 schema provides only a required string 'operation' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description contextually identifies the parameter as selecting a transformation operation, but it does not provide acceptable values, format, or examples, leaving the agent to infer them from sibling tools.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Return the full JSON schema of one transformation operation') and scopes the tool to a single operation. It also differentiates from the sibling hydra_list_operations by promising per-operation parameter details.

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?

It explicitly names hydra_list_operations as the alternative and gives a conditional rule: use this when listing is not enough. However, 'not enough' is somewhat vague and does not specify exactly what missing detail should trigger this tool.

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