aspro_describe

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds useful context about the content of the response (e.g., 'whether it mutates data' as part of the operation schema) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs or performance characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function and the key components of the returned schema. No wasted words.

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 describe tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what will be returned. It includes the essential details (HTTP method, path, mutation flag, request/response fields). However, it could be more complete by mentioning how module/entity/method are specified, but the schema fills in required parameters.

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 provides descriptions for 'method' and 'include_raw_response_schema' but not for 'module' and 'entity' (50% coverage). The description clarifies the overall purpose but does not explain individual parameters in depth. It relies partly on the schema to communicate parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the full schema for one operation' with specific details (HTTP method, path, mutation, request-body, response fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aspro_list_methods and aspro_call by focusing on schema introspection for a single 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?

The phrase 'for one operation' provides clear context that this tool is used when detailed schema information for a single operation is needed, rather than listing all modules/entities/methods. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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