get_document_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 states the tool returns structure and validation rules but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, or whether the operation is read-only. Since the name implies a read-only getter, the description adds little beyond the name. It also doesn't disclose any potential cost or latency, leaving the agent without explicit assurance of safety.

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 two sentences, with the purpose stated first and usage guidance second. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value—the first defines what it does, the second explains when to call it. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 has an output schema and zero parameters, the description provides essential usage context (call before adding documents) and explains the benefit (prevents validation errors). It doesn't cover edge cases like whether the schema is static or dynamic, or if there are any prerequisites like project context, but for a simple getter with an output schema, the coverage is adequate. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention that it's a read-only operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds context about what the return contains (validation rules, examples, entity references), which helps the agent understand the value of the response even though there are no parameters to clarify. This meets the baseline without needing to compensate for schema gaps.

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 returns the expected structure for a COBie Document, including validation rules and examples. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'COBie Document', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_cobie_headers or validate_document_input, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it when needing schema information.

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 says 'Call this before adding documents' and explains it helps understand required fields, PickList constraints, and entity references, preventing validation errors. This gives clear when-to-use context. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, such as after documents are already added or for other schema needs, leaving some inference required.

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