Look up the YAML schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an inspect-like, read-only posture through words like 'Inspect', 'summarize', 'search', and 'list', and it distinguishes between a summary and full resolved JSON output. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less relevant for a schema lookup tool.

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 that states the resource and then enumerates the supported modes with no filler. Every clause contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 description covers the primary interactions for a lookup tool with no required parameters and no output schema. It leaves the 'depth' parameter and mode-combination behavior unspecified, which an agent might need for more nuanced lookup calls. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, slightly more detail would make it fully complete.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'summarize or resolve a definition' to name/resolve, 'search by keyword' to search, and 'list all kinds' to listKinds, and provides useful example definition names. However, the 'depth' parameter is not explained, leaving some semantics to inference.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Copilot Studio authoring schema') and enumerates distinct modes: summarize/resolve definitions, keyword search, and list kinds. The examples of definition names add concreteness. This clearly differentiates the tool from the large set of siblings.

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 the tool's usage context—schema inspection—and lists the operations available, giving an agent clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling appears to overlap with schema lookup, so this is acceptable.

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