Get the full schema of a tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a 'get' operation without any side effects, which is transparent regarding its read-only nature. It doesn't mention edge cases like error handling for nonexistent tools, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient and honest.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a brief note on why it's useful (for constructing call_tool arguments). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It's highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity—two parameters, no output schema, and no complex behavior—the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and its role in the workflow. It doesn't cover error cases, but those are not essential for a basic schema retrieval tool. The description is sufficiently detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters (tool and server) clearly defined. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't degrade the baseline. It's adequate but doesn't exceed expectations.

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: retrieving the full description and JSON input schema for a specific tool. It uses the specific verb 'get' with the resource 'tool schema' and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for one tool, unlike list_tools or list_servers which list multiple.

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 the primary use case: obtaining the schema needed to construct arguments for call_tool. This gives clear context on when to use it (before calling a tool) and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tools and list_servers. However, it doesn't explicitly mention exclusion cases or alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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