get_api_schema

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 describes the two modes and what information is returned (method, path, summary, parameters, response schemas). It does not mention that the operation is read-only or any other behavioral traits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concise with no wasted words. It uses a clear structure (two numbered modes) and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect. There are no gaps.

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 provides full coverage (100%) with one optional parameter. The description adds substantial meaning by explaining the two modes ('No arguments' vs. 'With endpoint') and providing examples ('quote' or '/chains'). This goes beyond the schema description and helps the agent understand usage.

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: discovering Relay API endpoints and their schemas. It distinguishes two modes (listing all endpoints vs. showing details for a specific endpoint) and uses specific verbs like 'Discover', 'lists', and 'shows'. No other sibling tool covers this functionality.

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 advises using this tool 'before calling other tools' to explore the API. It explains the two modes and their parameters, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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