get_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns the complete schema, which clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects. The verb 'get' and the phrase '用于检查' (for checking) reinforce this. It does not delve into edge cases like authentication or session prerequisites, but for a simple getter 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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first immediately states the action and resource; the second gives the purpose. Zero filler, every word 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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is essentially complete. It tells the agent what it returns (full Formily Schema JSON) and why (to inspect structure). It could optionally mention that a session must exist, but the phrase 'current session' implicitly covers that, and sibling tools like get_session handle session management.

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% (vacuously). Per guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning since there are none.

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 specific verb ('获取' – get) and resource ('完整 Formily Schema JSON' of the current session), and even clarifies its purpose ('用于检查当前表单结构' – for checking the current form structure). This distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like set_full_schema, making its role obvious.

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?

It provides a clear context of use – to inspect the current form structure – which implies it is a read-oriented tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., get_data_config or get_template_detail) or state when not to use it. The purpose statement gives enough inference, but explicit exclusions would be stronger.

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