eda_tool_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns read/write semantics as part of its output, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as handling of unknown tool names.

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 redundant wording. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 one-parameter introspection tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the output content and the scoping to one tool. The only gap is the lack of explicit clarification that the 'name' parameter refers to a registered tool name.

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 'name' parameter. The phrase 'for one tool' implies 'name' is the tool name, which adds some meaning beyond the raw schema, but it does not explicitly state that 'name' must be an existing tool identifier or how it is resolved.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('complete JSON Schema, purpose and read/write semantics') scoped to 'one tool'. This cleanly differentiates it from the sibling EDA operation tools, which perform design actions rather than introspection.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_find_tools or eda_invoke. It does not state that it should be called before invoking a tool to discover its schema and semantics.

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