retrieve_xsd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions source type (URL/file path) but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid URL), authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal to build accurate mental model of tool behavior.

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 sentence of 11 words, conveying the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, leaving return value unspecified. The description says 'Retrieve' but does not clarify what the response contains (e.g., file content as string, or saved to path). While save_path implies possible saving, the return behavior is ambiguous, making the description incomplete for this simple tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters adequately described. The description adds 'Retrieve... from a URL or file path' but this reiterates the existing schema description for 'source'. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema, achieving the baseline for high coverage.

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 action 'Retrieve' and resource 'XSD file' with source specification 'URL or file path'. It adequately distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_xsd_elements' or 'validate_xsd', though not explicitly. A minor gap is lack of explicit differentiation, but purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_mcp_server_info, validate_xsd). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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