get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' weakly implies a safe read-only operation and 'cached' hints the data may be stale (refreshed via refresh_service), but it omits error behavior for missing schemas, staleness guarantees, and what 'resolve' does with $refs.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than being a strength in itself.

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 tool with three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell how to supply 'name'/'service' identifiers or what happens on failure, leaving it under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Only 33% schema description coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — it never explains what 'name', 'service', or 'workspace' should contain. With two of three required parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb pair (read/resolve) and a specific resource (one schema from a cached Swagger/OpenAPI document), which is more precise than a generic 'get'. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_operation or search_operations that also read from the same cached spec.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_operation, search_operations, or generate_request_example. The phrase 'resolve one schema' implies retrieval of a schema definition, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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