apidog_get_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 communicates a read-only retrieval ('Get') and discloses the dual output (schema definition and referencing endpoints). However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, though the verb strongly implies it. It could also mention error handling if schema not found, but that's not essential for a read 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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and return content sufficiently. The input schema covers parameters, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. Although no output schema is provided, the description explains the two-part result. Could mention that module is a required contextual parameter, but that's in the schema.

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%; all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond 'by name', so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full JSON Schema definition by name'), and adds a distinguishing feature ('plus list of endpoints that reference it') that separates it from sibling tools like apidog_list_schemas or apidog_get. It clearly states the tool's scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description implies it's the go-to for retrieving a named schema, but doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. Since sibling apidog_list_schemas exists, guidance would be beneficial.

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