lc_get_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states 'fetch' but does not mention that it is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for an agent to understand its 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 very concise (5 words), which is good, but it lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but under-specified, providing minimal value.

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?

Given the tool requires two parameters and has no output schema, the description should offer more context about what an event schema is and how it relates to other schema tools. It is incomplete for effectively selecting and invoking the 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the required parameters 'oid' and 'name'. The agent cannot infer what these parameters represent, which severely impacts correct invocation.

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 'Fetch one event schema definition' clearly states a specific verb and resource ('event schema'), and the inclusion of 'event' distinguishes it from sibling tools like lc_get_extension_schema and lc_get_hive_schema. However, it is very brief and could be more explicit about the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lc_list_schemas or lc_get_extension_schema. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for selection.

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