Describe a schema

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds behavior beyond that: results are compact and depth-limited, path navigation is supported, and a usedBy field lists referencing endpoints. It does not describe error handling or full return structure, but for a read-only introspection tool the disclosed traits are useful and non-contradictory.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, with the second sentence adding practical detail about path and usedBy. The first phrase is a sentence fragment ('A schema from components by name...'), which slightly hurts clarity, but there is no wasted content.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning usedBy, but it does not explain what the returned schema looks like, how mode affects the response, or error/not-found behavior. The input schema covers mode and depth, so the remaining gaps are moderate for an agent invoking this tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and defaults, so the description does not need to carry parameter documentation. It reinforces `path` as a drill-down mechanism and depth-limited output, but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 makes clear that the tool returns a schema from components by name and characterizes it as compact and depth-limited, which conveys the resource and format. It does not use a clear verb ('A schema...' rather than 'Gets a schema...') and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like api_types or api_endpoint, but the usedBy detail adds a distinguishing capability.

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 implies when the tool is useful by saying `path` drills into nested fields and `usedBy` lists referencing endpoints, which suggests navigation and impact-analysis use cases. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings such as api_types or api_endpoint, and no exclusions or alternatives.

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