get_tool_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'complete or filtered' adds some scoping detail. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not execute anything, does not require special auth, or describe the return format, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action first and the usage condition second. There is no fluff or redundant detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple schema-retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the tool's name and purpose make the return type fairly predictable. It also does not mention using search_tools for unknown tools, though the sibling context partially covers this.

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 already documents both tool_name and query. The description adds the 'complete or filtered' concept, which loosely maps to the query parameter, but does not provide new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 gets a complete or filtered schema for a specific tool, which is a specific verb plus resource. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like search_tools or execute_tool, though the 'known tool' phrasing hints at 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?

The description provides a clear usage condition: 'Use this when you need detailed schema information for a known tool.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of a known tool implies this is not for discovery or execution.

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