metamodel_get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms a read-only operation ('Get'). It adds useful detail about the returned content (model names, input parameters, output fields), enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 short sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides a critical prerequisite. No excess words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, prerequisite, and return content. It is complete given the tool's complexity and available structured information.

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 sole parameter 'token' is well-described in the schema, and the description adds context by referencing metamodel_list_projects as the source. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds marginal but helpful value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: to get the input/output schema for a published MetaModel project. It specifies the resource (schema) and the verb (get), and distinguishes from siblings like metamodel_list_projects and metamodel_compute by focusing on schema retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'Use a token from metamodel_list_projects,' providing a clear prerequisite and hinting at the workflow order. While it doesn't specify when not to use or list alternatives, this guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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