get_bus_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It identifies the tool as a discovery/read-type operation, but it does not say whether it scans the project, requires a built gem, or what output shape to expect. The input parameters (bus, module, project_path) hint at scoping but the description doesn't explain how they affect behavior. An output schema exists, which provides some return information, but behavioral details like side effects or prerequisites are not disclosed.

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 and is reasonably concise, with the core action and resource named. It could earn a 5 if it also differentiated from 'get_bus_schema_live' or noted scoping behavior, but it's efficient and front-loaded with the main verb and object.

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 discovery tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a sibling named almost identically, the description is incomplete. It does not tell the agent how the three optional parameters interact, which project/gem scope is used, whether this is a static vs live API query, or when to choose the sibling 'get_bus_schema_live'. The output schema may define the return type, but selection guidance and behavioral context are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It mentions 'any O3DE gem' and the tool name includes 'get_bus_schema', but it doesn't explain what 'bus', 'module', or 'project_path' individually mean or how they scope the query. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema itself, which only provides names and null-ability. This is a clear gap: an agent would not know whether parameters are filters, required inputs, or alternatives.

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 states a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('scripting API of any O3DE gem's reflected EBuses'). It is reasonably clear about its purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the very similar sibling tool 'get_bus_schema_live', which likely has the same discovery purpose but perhaps a different mode or context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage: use it when you need to discover the scripting API of a gem's reflected EBuses. It does not state when to prefer the alternative 'get_bus_schema_live' over this one, nor does it give conditions or exclusions. Basic context is present but no explicit routing to or away from siblings.

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