get_api_gateway_user_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not disclose what details are returned, whether the schema is user-created versus system-defined, or any contextual behavior beyond the tool name.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should help explain what 'details' means, but it does not. It also omits any relationship to sibling list/schema tools and provides no context for how the returned details might be used.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both required parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. However, the description adds no additional meaning about how zone_id and schema_id relate to the API Gateway user schema context.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('an API Gateway user schema'), which makes the tool's primary purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'list' tools by indicating a singular detail lookup, though it does not explain what differentiates a 'user schema' from other API Gateway schema tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_api_gateway_user_schemas or list_api_gateway_schemas. An agent is left to infer that this is the singular counterpart to a list operation.

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