get_schema

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

Description provides detailed behavior: without kind returns catalog, with kind returns attributes/relationships/filter keys, expand controls inline peering. Aligns with readOnlyHint annotation and adds context beyond it, such as TOON-encoding and server defaults.

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?

Three paragraphs: purpose, behavior with/without kind, and alternative. Each sentence adds information; no fluff. Could be slightly more compact but 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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return types and edge cases (default branch, server expand setting). No gaps remain for a discovery tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining the effect of each parameter (e.g., kind changes the output, expand inlines peer schema) and mentions TOON-encoding for efficiency.

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 'Discover available schema kinds' and instructs to call it first when kinds or filters are unknown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_nodes by focusing on schema metadata.

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?

It explicitly says when to use ('call this first when you don't know what kinds or filters exist') and suggests an alternative resource (infrahub://schema) for clients that support MCP resources. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.

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