get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get') without mentioning read-only semantics, permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or response format. The lack of such details leaves users guessing about operational traits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, stating the core function in a clear and direct manner.

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, parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the description provides a clear indication of the return content (field names and types). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what to expect. It lacks only minor additional context about stream_type distinctions, which the schema already handles.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds the high-level purpose ('field names and types') but does not elaborate on the stream_type parameter or its default. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 tool retrieves field names and types for a stream, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_streams (which lists streams) and search_logs (which searches logs) by focusing on schema metadata.

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 implies usage when you need stream schema information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It is not misleading, but lacks proactive usage context.

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