get_tool_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action (fetch schema) without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, if any authentication is required, error conditions, or rate limits. Since it's a 'fetch' it likely has no side effects, but that's not explicitly stated, and the description fails to provide any such context.

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 with no wasted words. It states the core purpose immediately and avoids fluff. This is an example of excellent conciseness and structure.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description is still incomplete. It doesn't explain how to use the tool (e.g., you need to provide a valid tool name), any constraints on the name, or when it's appropriate to call this before using execute_tool. For a tool with one parameter, a minimal description might suffice, but it leaves out practical context that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 has one parameter 'name' of type string with 0% coverage from the description. The description says 'for a single routed tool' which implicitly suggests the name refers to the tool, but it doesn't explicitly explain that the 'name' parameter is the tool identifier. It adds little meaning beyond what the schema already shows, and for a 0% coverage case, the description should compensate by clearly describing the parameter.

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 fetches the full schema (parameters) for a single routed tool. It uses a specific verb (fetch) and resource (schema), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on creating, inspecting, or executing tools. However, 'routed tool' is domain-specific and might not be immediately clear to an agent, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this should be called before executing a tool, nor does it exclude other tools like search_tools or get_category_tools. An agent is left to infer its usage, and no alternative tools are named.

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