get-schema

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

The annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe repeated use, but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond this. It explains how to interpret the output (extracting column names from 'columnName' properties), which is useful but not behavioral. No contradictions with annotations exist, but the description misses opportunities to clarify rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 moderately concise but could be better structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence and lengthy example focus on output interpretation, which might be better placed elsewhere. The example is detailed but may be excessive for a description, potentially cluttering the core message.

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 complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, idempotent annotation, and an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and how to interpret the output, which complements the structured fields. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, slightly reducing completeness for agent selection.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters (dataflowId and executionId). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It focuses on output interpretation instead. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.

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: 'Get data table schema from a Coupler.io data flow.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('data table schema'), and context ('from a Coupler.io data flow'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-data' or 'get-dataflow', which likely retrieve different types of information from the same system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-data' (which likely retrieves actual data) or 'get-dataflow' (which might retrieve flow metadata), nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions for usage beyond the parameters. The example focuses on output interpretation rather than usage context.

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