get_saga_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the schema is pinned to the running build, unknown keys are rejected, and the schema is authoritative over guesses. It doesn't state that the call is side-effect free or versioned, but the 'Return' verb plus output schema largely covers that.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a comma splice ('...field names, the schema is the authority...') that slightly muddles the strictness point, but the content earns its place.

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 supplies what structured fields can't: the versioned nature of the schema and its strictness. A note on how it relates to validate_saga would close the last gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters and instead spends its text on what the returned document governs.

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 JSON Schema for the Saga descriptor (*.saga.yaml)'. It also scopes the schema to 'this build of Draugr', which distinguishes it from validate_saga and propose_saga in the sibling list.

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?

'Use it to write or correct a descriptor rather than guessing at field names' gives a clear triggering context and names the anti-pattern it replaces. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as validate_saga, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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