Show an Omada data schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that $refs are inlined, meaning the returned schema is self-contained and pre-expanded. It says nothing about the effect of recursion depth, output size, or whether expansion can be truncated.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the trigger condition. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema this is close to sufficient, and the inlining note compensates for the missing return-value documentation. The unexplained maxDepth parameter, which directly shapes the size and completeness of the result, leaves a real gap.

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 coverage is only 50%: `name` is documented with an example, but `maxDepth` has no description in the schema and no mention in the description at all. The reader must infer from the min/max/default alone that it bounds reference-expansion depth, which is exactly the kind of meaning the description should supply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Expand a named schema from the Omada spec") plus an output behavior ("$refs are inlined"). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like omada_search_operations or omada_describe_operation, and an agent would not confuse it with omada_request.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: use it when another schema says "call omada_get_schema". That is a real routing rule rather than vague context. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., that you should not call it speculatively before searching operations).

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