tapir_describe_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow context beyond that: this is a schema-introspection prerequisite to tapir_run_command. It does not describe the shape of the returned schemas, but the read-only behavior is unambiguous.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The return-value statement is front-loaded and the prerequisite instruction follows immediately; every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (input and output JSON schemas) and why it exists (prerequisite to execution). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The single 'command' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including an example ('CreateWalls'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no further parameter detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Returns the input and output JSON schemas of a Tapir command.' This is clearly distinct from tapir_run_command and tapir_list_commands, though the differentiation from the latter is only implicit.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow position ('Read this before tapir_run_command'), which tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool and which sibling it precedes. It stops short of stating the inverse (e.g., don't call it standalone), but the routing signal is clear.

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