Buildium Describe Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context of resolving a depth-limit artifact, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not mention output format or error handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden.

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 short sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is placed in the second sentence. Every word 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema, the description provides the purpose and the exact scenario. Nothing an agent needs to decide when to invoke it is missing.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage) with an example, so the schema carries the meaning. The tool description does not add extra parameter details, but that is not necessary given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Expand a named schema from the spec') and ties it to a specific need: when buildium_describe_endpoint hits its depth limit and emits a bare $ref. This distinctly separates it from the sibling describe_endpoint tool and conveys the resource (schema) and the operation.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use this when buildium_describe_endpoint has a depth limit and returns a bare $ref. This implicitly names the alternative (describe_endpoint) and clearly defines when to use this tool instead. No other tool is needed for this scenario.

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