Get Schema

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond the annotation: project context is required, and the response can optionally include endpoint usage details. It does not describe response format details or error behavior, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the optional behavior follows naturally, and the prerequisite is stated clearly. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool, the description conveys what the tool returns (schema definition plus optional endpoint usage) and a key precondition (project context). The input schema covers the parameters. It could be more explicit about what 'requires project context' means operationally, but the description is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents specId, schemaId, and includeUsage. The description reinforces the meaning of the key parameters by mentioning the full JSON Schema definition and optional endpoint usage details, but it adds no information beyond the schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Get detailed information about a schema including its full JSON Schema definition.' This is clear and gives an agent a concrete sense of the return payload. However, it does not explicitly distinguish get_schema from sibling tools like get_shared_schema or list_schemas, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs a schema's full JSON Schema definition or endpoint usage details. The description also gives an explicit prerequisite with 'Requires project context.' It does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as list_schemas or get_shared_schema, so the guidance is only partially complete.

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