get_schema

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already state: readOnlyHint is true, idempotentHint is true, and destructiveHint is false. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or the handling of nonexistent or invalid schema IDs.

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. Every part contributes to the core meaning: get, saved extraction schema, by ID.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is minimally workable, but it omits useful context such as the return payload, how to acquire a valid ID via list_schemas, and behavior for missing schemas. The annotations cover safety, so the remaining gaps are not critical but still noticeable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single parameter. The phrase 'by ID' gives the agent some meaning for scheme_id, but it does not explain where the ID comes from, its format, or the typo mismatch between 'scheme_id' and the schema resource.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('saved extraction schema') and identifies the selection mechanism ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_schemas and get_schema_status, even without naming them.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need an existing saved extraction schema by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_schema_status, list_schemas, or any alternative, and no mention of how to obtain a valid scheme_id.

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