get_schema

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: the nuance of detail levels, that hidden tools are included, and that direct calls to hidden tools fail unless routed through call, batch, or execute. It does not cover unknown-tool error behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, one for workflow context, one for an important parameter tip, and one for the hidden-tool caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, workflow placement, and the critical hidden-tool caveat. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. A small gap is that 'pinned' is never defined, but this is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds only a usage hint ('Pass detail="full"'), which is helpful but not extra semantic meaning beyond the enum documentation. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get parameter schemas for specific tools by name.' It further narrows scope to 'pinned and hidden' tools and positions itself relative to search_tools and execute/batch, so an agent can clearly distinguish it from siblings without opening the 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 gives explicit workflow placement: 'Use after search_tools or before execute/batch to check parameter types and return shapes.' It also provides a when-not and alternative behavior for hidden tools by stating that direct calls will fail and that call, batch, or execute must be used instead.

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