nyarhi_schema_show

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'print' suggests a read-only operation, which is transparent, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, or provide any context about the graph's state or access requirements. It is not misleading but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential action and output format efficiently, fitting the tool's simple scope.

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?

Despite the low complexity (one optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the 'store' parameter or elaborate on what constitutes the 'active typed schema.' An agent cannot fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 schema has one parameter ('store') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it. The agent is left without any guidance on what 'store' means or how to use it, which is a significant gap for a tool with a single parameter.

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 ('print') and clearly identifies the resource ('active typed schema of the graph') and output format (JSON). It distinguishes from siblings like nyarhi_find or gavaza_report, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description implies its usage (when you need to see the schema), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention any alternatives. It is clear enough for a simple show tool but lacks explicit context.

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