qobrix_get_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns every field with name, type, label, and validation rules, and notes that resources are case-sensitive. It implicitly indicates a read-only schema operation without side effects, which is sufficient for this tool type, though it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' or discuss auth/rate limits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, opening with the main purpose and a strong 'CALL THIS FIRST' directive. It includes a useful resource list and related-tool pointers. A minor redundancy exists between 'CALL THIS FIRST' and 'Canonical use,' but overall every sentence adds value, and length is appropriate for the role.

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 having no output schema, the description explains the return format: 'Returns every field with name, type, label, and validation rules.' It also covers the full context of when and why to use the tool, lists all valid resource values, and references complementary tools. This is complete for a schema-discovery operation with only one parameter.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, including valid values and usage context for the 'resource' parameter. The description repeats much of this but adds marginal context such as 'source of truth' and 'canonical use.' Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description doesn't add significant parameter-level meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the full field schema for any CRM resource' and lists the exact resource types. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning qobrix_get_field_options (enum values) and qobrix_search_dsl_help (search grammar), making its role unique.

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?

Guidance is explicit: 'CALL THIS FIRST when unsure about field names for search, fields[], or sort.' It defines the canonical use case and names when to prefer alternative tools ('Pair with qobrix_get_field_options...', 'For search grammar, prefer qobrix_search_dsl_help'). This is perfect when/when-not guidance.

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