Get Managed Object Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Retrieve' is consistent. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide (e.g., error handling, output format, or authentication needs), but it does not contradict annotations either.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words that conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word is necessary and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates the tool returns a schema definition. However, it could explicitly mention that the response is a JSON schema or that includeFullDefinition affects verbosity, which is already partially covered in the parameter description. The lack of output schema limits the need for further detail, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including examples and a hint for objectType, and explains the effect of includeFullDefinition. The main description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'schema definition for a managed object type', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getManagedObject (which retrieves an instance) and listManagedObjects (which lists types). The product context 'in PingOne AIC' adds specificity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance in the main description. The parameter description for objectType hints at using listManagedObjects to discover types, but this indirect guidance does not fully clarify usage versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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