inspect_schema

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating that examples and defaults are not returned, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it does not fully disclose the return format or potential errors, though the read-only nature is implied by 'summarize'. This is acceptable but not thorough.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Summarize a local JSON Schema') and includes a specific constraint without wasted words. It is highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is adequately complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what it omits, though it could explicitly mention the return format. The simplicity of the tool lowers the required detail.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'file' fully described as a local JSON Schema file and network URLs not accepted. The tool description does not add further parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: summarizing a local JSON Schema's types, properties, required fields, composition, and constraints. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'plan_fixture' by focusing on inspection rather than planning.

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 when to use the tool (for local JSON Schemas) and the parameter description explicitly excludes network URLs, providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'plan_fixture', so it lacks an explicit exclusionary guideline.

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