rybbit_get_query_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states 'No API request is made' and lists what it returns (column names, types, usage notes), providing useful insight into the tool's behavior and safety. It does not mention side effects or caveats, but given it's a read-only schema lookup, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value: the resource, the purpose, the return values, and the no-API call. There is no wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter schema retrieval tool, the description is complete. It states the input (none), the object (scoped_events table), the output (column names, types, usage notes), and the relationship to rybbit_run_query. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently covers what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the table and purpose, but param-specific semantics are not needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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 action ('Get'), the specific resource ('ClickHouse column schema of the scoped_events table'), and its intended use ('for use with rybbit_run_query'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which retrieve data rather than schema.

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?

It provides clear context by mentioning it is meant to be used with rybbit_run_query, implying it should be called before constructing a query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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