Get RSK schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses that the schema is generated by `specmgr schema`, kept current by a pre-commit hook/CI step, and includes a `$comment` version marker for detecting shape changes. It doesn't discuss permissions, but this is clearly a read-only retrieval tool.

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?

Front-loads the return value, then usage guidance, then provenance. It is dense with parentheticals and em-dash asides, but each sentence carries useful information and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described in detail. The description covers purpose, usage exclusions, provenance, freshness guarantees, and a version-detection mechanism, leaving no significant gap for a zero-parameter read 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: return the RSK domain's generated JSON Schema as raw text. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the markdown view and from get_rsk_template, which handles authoring starting points.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases (constraint discovery, structural questions, unresolved validation error) and an explicit when-not (never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch). It also points to the alternative sibling, get_rsk_template, for the authoring case.

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