get_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that results are paged within a response budget and that long remarks are marked `truncated`. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior or describe response pagination metadata, though the verb 'Return' strongly implies a read operation.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose and return content. Usage guidance and paging/truncation behavior follow efficiently, with no wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the key returned fields and explains paging within a response budget plus truncation markers. With 100% schema description coverage for the five parameters, an agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by a given `name`, but adds little parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: return every OSCAL Metaschema definition with a given name. It also enumerates the returned structure (formal name, description, remarks, flags, model children, constraint summaries, source file/line) and distinguishes this from generated JSON/XML schemas that may omit details.

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 a clear use case: when documentation or structure is needed beyond what generated JSON/XML schemas preserve. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_oscal_schema or get_metaschema_source, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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