Get Tool Schema

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful context that search results are summaries and this tool provides fuller schema detail. It does not discuss name matching, errors, or rate limits, so it remains moderate rather than rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the usage condition. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the relationship to search. It leaves minor gaps around exact tool-name resolution and error behavior, which keeps it from full completeness.

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 single `name` parameter has 0% schema description coverage; the description implies it is the Linode API tool name, but it does not explicitly define the parameter format, case sensitivity, or exact-match behavior. It provides some compensation but not enough for a high score.

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 ('Return') and resource ('a Linode API tool's full description and input schema'), and it distinguishes the tool from search results, which only summarize parameters in one line. An agent can tell this is the detail-retrieval sibling of search_tools and call_tool.

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 condition for use: before calling a tool whose nested parameters need more detail, because search summaries are only one line. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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