Get the Clipkit JSON Schema (exact fields)

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read-only operation. The description adds that the schema is 'generated from the protocol' and notes size differences ('much smaller'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format or error conditions. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds enough context but not rich detail.

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 two sentences: the first defines the tool, the second explains invocation options and use case. Every sentence earns its place, there is no redundancy, and the key verb 'Return' is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, invocation patterns, and use case. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the tool returns a schema, which is self-descriptive. The description is complete for its complexity.

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 already covers the sole parameter element_type with a description and all enum values. The tool description essentially repeats this with examples ('text', 'shape', 'particles') and the 'much smaller' note, adding minimal new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the authoritative JSON Schema for a Clipkit Source — exact field names, types, and enums'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_docs. The additional context 'so you never guess a field' reinforces its purpose.

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 'Use this when authoring with set_project / add_element so you never guess a field', providing a clear use case. It also explains how to use the optional element_type parameter for smaller responses. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives such as read_docs, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance.

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