aleph_get_schema_info

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, the description explains what behavior to expect depending on the input: a list of schemata when omitted, and properties/links when a name is supplied. This adds return-behavior context without contradiction, though it does not cover finer details like error cases.

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 sentences deliver the tool's purpose, invocation pattern, and usage context with no repetition or filler. The information is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes to the agent's ability to call the tool correctly.

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 read-only reference tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it and understand its result shape at a high level. It might be slightly richer about the exact structure of the returned schema properties, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 already documents the sole parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining the no-argument behavior, providing example names, and tying the parameter to practical use (picking filters or expanding properties). This goes beyond the baseline schema-only value.

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 identifies the tool as a reference for the followthemoney data model and specifies its two calling modes: no argument lists all schemata, a schema name returns properties and links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aleph_get_entity or aleph_search, which operate on entities rather than the schema model itself.

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 states a clear use case: 'Use it to pick the right schema filter or expand property.' It also gives direct guidance on when to pass a schema name versus no argument. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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