cutbolt_schema

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds little. The real value is behavioral detail the annotations don't cover: large schemas degrade to an outline of variants and definitions, and `select` returns one part plus its references. No return-format guarantees beyond that, but it goes past the structured hints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the narrowing behavior and the select syntax. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the enumeration of shared types is somewhat list-heavy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so: outlines of variants and definitions by default, full schema on request, targeted fragment via select. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds concrete format examples the schema does not: 'operation + clip.append, or scene + Layer' clarifies how select composes with name. The `full` parameter is not otherwise illuminated, keeping this from a 5.

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 ('Return the JSON Schema for one command's arguments') and enumerates both the command form and the shared-type abbreviations it accepts. An agent can tell immediately this is the schema-introspection tool, distinct from the session/job/cache siblings.

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?

Explains the practical workflow: large schemas return as an outline, and 'pass select ... for one part with everything it references' tells the agent how to drill down. It does not name an alternative sibling, but none of the siblings offer the same capability, so the omission is minor.

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