owp_get_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' and adjective 'authoritative' imply a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state behavior for invalid inputs, error conditions, or whether the returned schema is cached or dynamically generated. This is acceptable for a simple getter but leaves some uncertainty.

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 succinct, uses a clear structure with a one-line purpose followed by an Args list, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what the tool does, the allowed object types, and the version default. It does not explain return value shape, but that is handled by the output schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a getter 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing all valid object_type values (work-order, capability-grant, etc.) and explaining the version default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions, though it does not specify constraints on the version format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('authoritative JSON Schema for an OpenWorkProof object type'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like owp_get_schema_digest, which retrieves a digest rather than the schema itself.

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 provides clear usage context by enumerating the valid object_type values and specifying the default version. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., owp_get_schema_digest) or any exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that a user would know when it applies.

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