Get Tool Schema

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the tool works 'whether or not its toolset is loaded,' which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It also states the return contents, partially compensating for the missing output schema.

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 zero wasted words. The first front-loads the verb and resource; the second carries the usage guidance and follow-up action. Every sentence 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 single-parameter read-only introspection tool, everything needed is present: what it returns, the scope (228 tools, unloaded toolsets included), when to use it, and the next step. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description naming the return contents explicitly.

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%, with the single 'tool' parameter already documented as requiring an exact tool name with a concrete example. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the input schema, title and description of any of this server's 228 tools.' It clearly distinguishes this introspection tool from siblings like sf_find_tool (which locates tools) and sf_call_tool (which invokes them), so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

'Use this to find out what arguments a tool takes when it is not in your tool list, then invoke it with sf_call_tool' provides an explicit when-to-use condition and names the follow-up alternative. This gives the agent a clear decision rule and workflow in one sentence.

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