find_operations_using_schema

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds transparency by detailing the output structure (referenced_in list showing dependency clusters). No contradictions, but additional behavioral details like pagination or limits are absent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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's simplicity, the description covers purpose and output format. However, it lacks explanation of the 'repo' parameter and potential limitations (e.g., scope of operations). No output schema exists, so return value explanation suffices.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'repo' and 'schema_name'. While context hints at their meaning, the tool fails to provide necessary semantic definition for correct usage.

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 function: returning operations referencing a given schema, specifying the scope (request body or response) and output format (referenced_in list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_endpoint' which likely search by endpoint rather than schema.

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 implies when to use (when needing operations referencing a schema), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. Given the sibling tools, there is no direct alternative, so the guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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