Buildium Describe Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about expanding schemas after a depth-limit failure, but it does not clarify behavior such as recursive ref expansion, error behavior for unknown names, or output granularity.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler: the action, example, and trigger condition are front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information.

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 simple one-parameter read-only introspection tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It gives the input example and the workflow context; the only minor gap is leaving the exact meaning of 'expand' (e.g., resolves nested references fully or not) implicit.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only a 'name' type string in the schema, the description compensates by giving an example ('LeasePostMessage') and specifying the name comes from the spec. It could list more examples or naming rules, but the single parameter is otherwise self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Expand') and resource ('a named schema from the spec') and gives a concrete example ('LeasePostMessage'). It also differentiates itself from buildium_describe_endpoint by tying its purpose to that tool's depth-limit failure mode.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when buildium_describe_endpoint hit its depth limit and emitted a bare $ref, which is clear contextual guidance. It names the relevant sibling, though it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it or describe alternative scenarios.

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