get_payload_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two important non-obvious behaviors: unknown keys are preserved and shown on the page, and unknown section types degrade to a generic custom section instead of failing. This adds real value beyond the tool's basic purpose, though it does not discuss authentication or output format, which are at least partially covered by the output schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant information: the return value, the usage timing, and the permissiveness behavior. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers everything essential to invoke it correctly: what it returns, when to call it, and the permissive schema behavior that affects downstream rendering. The output schema handles return structure details, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the include_example parameter at all. While the parameter name and title are self-explanatory to a human, the description provides no explicit link between the worked example mentioned and this boolean flag. The description should clarify that include_example controls whether the worked example is returned.

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 states a specific action: 'Return the JSON Schema for a site payload, plus a worked example.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and its output. It also distinguishes the tool from render_site by positioning it as a prerequisite step.

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 'Call this before render_site the first time,' giving agents a direct trigger condition for use. This is clear, actionable guidance that also implicitly tells the agent not to call render_site blindly before retrieving the schema.

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