Get VCR schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the schema is generated by `specmgr schema`, kept current by a pre-commit hook/CI step, and includes a `$comment` layout-version marker. It does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect behavior or access requirements, but the retrieval nature and provenance are clear.

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 dense but front-loaded: the return value comes first, then the differentiation from `get_vcr_template`, then usage guidance, then provenance/freshness details. Every sentence adds operational value, including the version-marker note for detecting schema shape changes.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly: it names the returned artifact, dialect, format, provenance, freshness mechanism, and intended use cases. Return-value details are backed by the output schema, so no further description of response shape is required.

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, and the schema describes none, so parameter semantics are not a source of ambiguity. The description appropriately focuses on the returned resource rather than adding parameter detail that does not exist.

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 verb and resource: it returns the VCR domain's generated JSON Schema as raw text. It explicitly distinguishes this machine-readable schema view from the markdown/authoring starting point by naming `get_vcr_template` as the alternative.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: constraint discovery, structural questions, or an unresolved validation error. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule: never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch, and routes authoring to `get_vcr_template`.

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