introspect_admin_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does explain the tool's basic behavior: it introspects and returns schema sections, filtered by query and filter. It does not disclose output structure, size limits, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, though 'introspects' strongly implies a safe read action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose before listing arguments. It avoids excessive detail, though the second sentence partly duplicates schema information and the phrase 'relevant to the user prompt' adds unnecessary ambiguity.

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?

The tool is simple, has only two well-documented parameters, and no output schema, so the description gives enough to start a call. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description would be stronger if it clarified what the returned schema data looks like and how to interpret the filter options in practice.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates what the input schema already documents: query filters schema elements by name, and filter selects sections. It adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as introspecting and returning a portion of the Shopify Admin API GraphQL schema, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it mentions returning schema 'relevant to the user prompt' even though the actual parameters are query and filter, introducing slight ambiguity about how the prompt maps to the tool call.

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 restricts usage to the Shopify Admin API and warns against using it for Storefront or Functions APIs, which provides clear when/not-to-use guidance. It does not, however, contrast this tool with sibling alternatives such as query_shopify, so the differentiation from tools that execute GraphQL queries is implied rather than stated.

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