get_schema_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error conditions, or output nature. For example, it doesn't clarify if the file must exist or if the operation is read-only.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second adds purpose. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more structured with a clear use-case section.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on output format or behavior in edge cases. An agent might need more context to interpret 'schema information' broadly.

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 parameter 'filePath' is fully described in the input schema as 'Path to the .fig file'. The description reinforces this by mentioning the .fig file source but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clear verb 'Get' and identifies the specific resource 'kiwi schema information from the .fig file'. It stands out from siblings like 'get_document_summary' or 'parse_fig_file' by focusing exclusively on schema information.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for debugging and understanding the file format', which implies usage context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'parse_fig_file' or 'get_document_summary'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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