get_engine_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It clearly states that the tool returns a lean, compact overview with limited param detail, and that it is token-cheap. No side effects are mentioned, but for a read-only discovery tool, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, usage flow, and trade-offs. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides context.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and workflow well. However, the lack of parameter explanation and the fact that the engine parameter's source is not mentioned reduces completeness.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 'engine' parameter, but it does not. It only mentions 'one engine' without specifying valid values, format, or how to obtain them. This is a critical omission for an agent selecting the tool.

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 it provides a compact overview of one engine's actions, descriptions, required params, and return values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_action_schema and call_engine by explaining its role in the workflow (after search_engines, before get_action_schema).

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 when to use this tool (after search_engines to pick the right action) and when to use alternatives (get_action_schema for full params before call_engine). It also explains the rationale for using this tool (keeping token-cheap).

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